LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

Chap. Copyright M, 

Shelf..i.J_/^ 



UNJTED STATES OF AMERICA. 



THE NEW APOLOGETIC 



nVE LECTURES 



ON 



TRUE AND FALSE METHODS OF MEETING 
MODERN PHILOSOPHICAL AND CRITICAL 
ATTACKS UPON THE CHRIS- 
TIAN RELIGION 



/ BY 

/ 

MILTON S. TERRY, DX>., LLD. 

Professor in Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, III. 



'1 



V' 



NEWYORK: EATON & MAINS 

CINCINNATI : CURTS & JENNINGS 

1897 



-X I 






Copyright by 

EATON & MAINS, 

1897. 



The Library 
OF Congress 



WASHINGTON 



t MJIMWU i i 



preface 



The following lectures are of the nature j 
of an introduction to the study of apologet- j 
ics, rather than apology itself. Their main 
object is to guard against erroneous methods, ; 
and to suggest some few outlines of argu- j 
ment which may be of service to the inter- 
ests of truth. The lectures have been read \ 
before various bodies of ministers and theo- i 
logical students, and have called forth many j 
expressions of desire to obtain them in ' 
printed form. They are accordingly given 
to the public as they were first written and \ 
read. A considerable number of footnotes, j 
however, have been inserted, which it is ! 
believed will add no little interest and value 
to the volume. 



Contents 



I 

Definitions and Historical Retrospect ... 7 

II 
The Philosophical Apology 41 

III 

The Literary-Critical Apology ...... 79 

IV 

The Apology of Comparative Religion . . . 119 

V 

The Positive Apology 157 

5 



?Befinitton0 anb ^tatorical 
Retrospect 



** Every age must produce its own apologies, adapted 
to prevailing tendencies and wants.^ — ^Schaff^ Theological 
Propaedeutic^ p« 3(0* 



Zhc Bew Hpolooetic 



Definitions and Historical Retrospect 

Every system of belief and practice ought 
to be able to give a reason for its existence. 
When a new doctrine is propounded it nat- 
urally invites the criticism and opposition 
of those who think it false. It was to be 
expected, therefore, that when Christian- 
ity began to be proclaimed as a new reli- 
gion it would meet with various kinds of 
opposition, first from the Jew, and later 
from the Gentile. Its adherents were called 
upon to produce reasons for the new depar- 
ture. Under the pressure of opposition, and 
often of bitter persecution, they sought to 
convince their enemies that Christianity not 
only had a right to exist, but was the highest 
form of religion and worthy of the accep- 
tation of all men. Such a defense, or self- 
vindication, of the Christian faith was called 
by the early Greek fathers an apology 
(dno^oyla). The word has, therefore, in the- 
ological literature a meaning quite different 



XTbe IPlew Hpologetic 

from that which it bears in common usage, 
as when one is said to apologize for some 
wrong which he has committed. The 
Christian apology, so far from being an ac- 
knowledgment of error or of wrongs, is, on 
the contrary, a vigorous defense against the 
attacks of enemies. Such defenses, from 
the nature of their contents, are also often 
spoken of as ** evidences of Christianity." 

The defenses of the Christian faith have 
naturally varied much, both in form and 
contents, according to the nature of the dif- 
ferent attacks. A single apology, written 
by this or that defender of the faith, was 
called forth by some practical demand of 
the time. But after many such works had 
been written, and had come to form a dis- 
tinct class of theological literature, the study 
of Christian evidences assumed the charac- 
ter of a science, and is now known by the 
technical name of apologetics. As in all 
other departments of research, so in theo- 
logical discipline, the accumulation of ma- 
terials must prepare the way for a scientific 
use of them. As a matter of fact, practice 
goes before theory ; and there was a large 
number of Christian apologies before there 
was or could be a science of apologetics. It 

10 



1bi0torlcal IRettospect 

is only during the present century that 
apologetics, as a distinct branch of theolog- 
ical study, has attained to scientific defini- 
tion and treatment. Ebrard defines the 
subject as ''that science which deduces from 
the nature of Christianity itself what classes 
of attacks are generally possible, what dif- 
ferent sides of Christian truth may possibly 
be assailed, and what false principles lie at 
the bottom of these attacks."* 

In order to appreciate the nature and 
scope of this great subject we must be ac- 
quainted with the various forms of opposi- 
tion with which Christianity has had to con- 
tend. Our first lecture will, accordingly, be 
of the nature of an historical review and a 
classification of attacks and apologies. 

The Jewish opposition to Christ and his 
teaching is recorded in the New Testament 
and shows a spirit of bitterness and hatred. 
The Jews said in their hasty passion, *' He 
casts out devils by the prince of devils ; " 
* ' No good thing can come out of Nazareth ; ** 
* * No true prophet can violate the Sabbath 
as this man does ;" ** He is opposed to Moses 

* Apologetics; or. The Scientific Vindication of Christianity. 
English translation by Stuart and Macpherson, vol. i, p. 3. 
Edinburgh, 1886. 

11 



XTbe naew Hpologetic 

and seeks to overthrow the temple and wor- 
ship of Israel;" ''Being a man, he makes 
himself equal with God." The later Jewish 
opposition, against which Justin Martyr and 
Origen wrote, was of much the same char- 
acter. Jesus of Nazareth, crucified as a 
malefactor, did not satisfy the Messianic ex- 
pectations of his time. The Christians neg- 
lected the law, the ritual of sacrifice, the 
rites of circumcision, and the Passover. 
But, in thus breaking away from Judaism, 
Christianity passed through a life and death 
struggle. The malice and vituperation of 
the fanatical party caused most of the first 
persecutions, and could not be met by reason 
or by appeals to sympathy. The passionate 
bigot of any sect or age is blind to all ra- 
tional appeals, and the malice of Jewish 
persecution of Christians continued long 
after Jerusalem had been laid in ruins by 
the Romans and the temple and its ritual 
had been effectually destroyed. 

The pagan opposition, so far as it arose 
from ignorance and prejudice, was of much 
the same character as the early Jewish. 
When such writers as Tacitus and the 
younger Pliny could call the new religion 
*'a destructive, perverse, and extravagant 

12 



1bi5tortcal IRetrospect 

superstition" and '*an unchangeable stub- 
bornness," we may well believe that less 
considerate minds would have for it nothing 
but words of execration. Hence, the charge 
of atheism, superstition, want of culture, 
and worship of a crucified malefactor came 
evidently from persons too much blinded by 
prejudice and contempt to bestow upon the 
doctrines and life of the Christians any fair 
amount of examination. Such assaults may 
now be considered obsolete. For, while we 
may occasionally meet with exhibitions of 
ignorance and hatred of all religions, and 
diatribes as bitter and satirical as any of the 
old Jewish and pagan assaults, they no 
longer command respect with earnest seek- 
ers after truth. 

Aside from such ignoble attacks, the 
forms of opposition which Christianity has 
been called upon, first and last, to encounter 
may be classed under three heads; (i) the 
rationalistic-philosophical; (2) the literary- 
critical ; and (3) those arising out of the study 
of rival religions. All these may be traced 
through the Christian centuries, although 
they vary much from time to time, both in 
materials and methods. It is a grave mis- 
take to suppose that rationalism, higher 



Ubc Bew Bpolo^ettc 

criticism, and the comparison of rival re- 
ligions are solely the products of modern 
times. They have appeared, both in the 
Church and outside of the Church, from the 
days of the apostles onward. 

I. THE PHILOSOPHICAL CONFLICT. 

In the earliest outgrowth of Christianity 
as a new religion it came into contact with 
Greek and oriental philosophy. Long be- 
fore the days of the apostles many specula- 
tive philosophers had put forth their theo- 
ries of matter and of mind. Paul found at 
Athens Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, 
who '* encountered him ;" and it is said that 
"all the Athenians and the strangers so- 
journing there spent their time in nothing 
else but either to tell or to hear some new 
thing." The apostle of the Gentiles after- 
ward admonished the Colossians to beware 
of * ' any that maketh spoil of you through 
his philosophy and vain deceit, after the 
tradition of men, after the elements of the 
world, and not after Christ " (Col. ii, 8). 
Justin }^Iartyr, the first great apologist, in- 
forms us that in his ov/n earnest search for 
truth he first surrendered himself to a Stoic 
philosopher, but, finding in him no knowl- 

14 



IFDtstorlcal IRettospect 

edge of God, betook himself to a professed 
disciple of Aristotle. Disappointed again, 
he sought the instruction of a very cele- 
brated Pythagorean, but with no more satis- 
factory results. Then he joined himself to 
a wise Platonist and imagined for a time 
that he himself had become wise; but, 
chancing to meet one day with an old man 
who pointed out to him the insufficiency of 
his doctrines and the excellency of the 
teachings of the Hebrew prophets and the 
Gospel of Christ, a holy flame was kindled 
in his soul, and he found in Christ the only 
safe and profitable philosophy. This ex- 
perience of Justin is an excellent example 
of the search for truth which many a long- 
ing spirit has pursued. All such are like 
the man of Jesus's parable — *' a merchant 
seeking goodly pearls." 

In view of discussions to follow, we will 
do well at this point to refer briefly to the 
ancient schools of Greek philosophy. Thales 
is supposed to represent the earliest of these, 
and taug-ht that all nature is endowed with 
life, everything is full of gods, and water is 
the primordial element of the universe. 
Anaximander rose to the lofty conception 
of one original substance, which he called 

15 



Zbc 1RCX0 Hpologettc 

the infinite {rb dneipov)^ out of which all things 
arise and to which they return again. Ac- 
cording to Anaximenes, all things originate 
in air ; but according to Heraclitus the origin 
of all things and the principle of perpetual 
motion are to be found in fire — a clear, 
light fluid, not essentially different from 
what Anaximenes meant by air. Out of 
this original fire-fluid all nature is evolved, 
the souls of men, as well as all things else. 
Souls accordingly partake of the quality of 
the natural environments and the soil from 
which they spring. The wisest souls origi- 
nate in a dry land and climate ; hence the 
intellectual greatness of the Greeks. But 
the drunkard has a wet soul! Probably 
these notions would not be indorsed by the 
materialistic evolutionists of modern times. 
According to Pythagoras, the regulating 
principle of the universe is to be found in 
the proportions and harmony of numbers, 
and the heavenly bodies were supposed to 
move according to a regular musical scale. 
He also taught the doctrine of the transmi- 
gration of souls. 

In Plato, however, we find a higher range 
of thought. His philosophy was conspicu- 
ously spiritual and theistic, as compared 

16 



1btstoi1cal IRetrospect 

with the materialistic systems of most of his 
predecessors. Spiritual entities are the only- 
real existences, and the material world is in 
perpetual change, flowing into forms of be- 
ing and then flowing out. As the soul of 
the world existed before the world, so all 
human souls must have existed before the 
bodies they inhabit. God is the first cause 
of all things ; but it is diflicult to make out 
clearly whether, after all Plato says about 
the supreme mind, intelligence, reason, and 
the highest good, he really believed in the 
personality of God. His doctrine of ' * ideas, " 
the eternal and unchangeable archetypes 
of all that is true and beautiful and good, 
contains an element of mysticism, and has 
mightily influenced the speculative tenden- 
cies of later theorists. 

Such were some of the systems of thought 
current in the Greek-speaking communities 
when the Gospel of Christ began to be 
preached. Long before this date the metrop- 
olis of Egypt had become a famous center 
of intellectual culture. Not the Greek phi- 
losopher only, but the Roman rhetorician, 
the Jewish rabbi, and the Asiatic mystic 
confronted each other and put their various 
theories to the test of reason. The Jewish 

17 



Ubc 'Ucw HpolOGCtlc 

mind was there so deeply influenced by the 
prevailing culture that it invented the alle- 
gorical method of interpreting those parts 
of the Old Testament which seemed to be 
inconsistent with the reigning philosophy. 
To minds influenced by the various theories 
of the philosophical schools, the doctrines 
of salvation through Christ were naturally 
offensive. When Paul, in his address at 
Athens, referred to the resurrection of Jesus, 
some of his hearers mocked; and that 
mockery may be taken as an example of the 
manner in which all the materialistic phi- 
losophers treated the Gospel message. The 
Jews asked for signs; the Greeks sought 
after wisdom ; but the doctrine of Christ 
crucified was a stumbling-block to the one, 
and foolishness to the other. 

The opposition of Greek culture and phi- 
losophy voiced itself powerfully in the writ- 
ings of five distinguished men — Lucian, 
Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, and Julian. Of 
these, the attack of Celsus, replied to by 
Origen, will best serve to exhibit the nature 
of the argument. For Celsus poses as a 
Greek philosopher, and all his criticisms, 
when resolved into their fundamental prin- 
ciple, are little else than the intellectual 

18 



f)i0torical IRetrospect 

revulsion of a speculative mind against what 
he regards as inconsistent with his own 
philosophical assumptions. And is not this 
in substance the ground of all subsequent 
philosophical objections to Christianity? 
Celsus is especially pronounced against the 
Christian idea of the incarnation, or of God 
manifesting himself among men. To his 
way of thinking, such a manifestation would 
be a transition from good to evil, from hap- 
piness to misery, and therefore repugnant 
to all worthy conceptions of Deity. In like 
manner, the simplicity of the Gospel, its 
adaptation to the poor and unlearned, and 
the lack of literary finish and perfection 
in its written documents are all unworthy 
of approval or authority from God. The 
notion that man was made in the image of 
God and stands at the head of creation was 
a subject of ridicule with Celsus ; and he 
compared the Jews and Christians ' * to a 
flight of bats, or to a swarm of ants issuing 
out of their nest, or to frogs holding coun- 
cil in a marsh, or to worms crawling to- 
gether in the corner of a dunghill, and 
quarreling with one another as to which of 
them were the greatest sinners, and as- 
serting that God, having abandoned the 

19 



Ubc Bew Hpologettc 

regions of heaven, ' has become a citizen 
among us alone, to whom he makes himself 
familiar and tells us how we may be asso- 
ciated with him forever!'"* 

Herein we have a fair sample of the phil- 
osophical objections to Christian doctrine 
which the earliest apologists were called 
upon to answer. The fundamental dualism 
of matter and mind, so conspicuous in the 
best forms of Greek philosophy, could not 
adjust itself to the concept of the most high 
God concerning himself with the petty af- 
fairs of the world. To those subtle thinkers 
the anthropomorphism of the Bible was 
simply preposterous, andthey hastily reached 
the conclusion that Christianity was irra- 
tional, and even foolishness. 

The higher speculations of Greek phi- 
losophy had much to do with the rise and 
development of gnosticism — that one-sided 
intellectualism which has been well called 
the rationalism of the ancient Church. 
This form of rationalism combined various 
elements of Greek theosophy and Zoroas- 
trian dualism, and was in its nature and 
purpose a mighty effort to harmonize the 
doctrines of Christianity with reason. The 

* Origen, ad Cel., book iv, chap, xxiii. 
20 



tbtstortcal IRetrospect 

infinite God was assumed to be so absolute 
and inaccessible that he could not be sup- 
posed to have any immediate relationship 
with the world of matter. But from him 
downward emanated various spirits, pow- 
ers, or aeons, which became more and more 
defective the farther they were removed 
from the original fount of being, until at 
length, in the process of emanations, wisdom 
delegated the Demiurge to form the world, 
after which the Christ descends and will ul- 
timately deliver all spiritual beings from the 
power of evil. It seems strange to us now 
that such a congeries of fantastic ideas could 
have fascinated the minds of many earnest, 
thoughtful men. But such was the fact, 
and Schaff pronounces gnosticism **the 
grandest and most comprehensive form of 
speculative religious syncretism known in 
history. . . . The old world here rallied all 
its energies to make out of its diverse ele- 
ments some new thing and to oppose to the 
real, substantial universalism of the catho- 
lic Church an ideal, shadowy universalism 
of speculation!""^ 

I have dwelt upon these earliest forms of 
the philosophical attacks on Christianity in 

* History of the Christian Churchy vol. ii, p. 448. 
21 



Zbc IRew Hpoloaetic 

order to show to what an extent they an- 
ticipate in general character all later oppo- 
sitions of philosophy and science to the 
doctrines of the Christian faith. It is not 
necessary, therefore, to enlarge upon the 
skepticism and unbelief which arose in the 
Middle Ages. The revival of learning in 
the fifteenth century and the study of the 
Greek and Roman classics fascinated many 
minds, as they did the emperor Julian, and 
led them to prefer the Platonic philosophy 
to the dogmas of the Church and to adopt 
pantheistic conceptions of the world. Bacon 
and Descartes introduced new methods of 
thought. The English deism, so far as it 
moved on philosophical lines, was a protest 
of reason against the idea of a special super- 
natural revelation. Toland maintained the 
supremacy of reason in matters of religion, 
and insisted on the impossibility of believ- 
ing anything above or contrary to reason. 
Shaftesbury argued that philosophy and 
common sense are quite sufficient to work 
out the problems of natural religion and 
theology, and he rejected as unnecessary 
the idea of a revealed theology. Tindal 
attempted to show that natural religion 
is perfect in itself, and therefore cannot 

22 



Ibtstortcal IRetrospect 

receive additions ; all that is important or 
valuable in Christianity, he held, is as old 
as the creation. Bolingbroke and Gibbon 
presumed to account for the origin and rapid 
spread of Christianity by means of natural 
causes ; and Hume maintained that, in view 
of the established uniformity of nature's 
laws, no amount of human testimony can 
prove a miracle. 

The French infidelity which flourished in 
the latter part of the eighteenth century 
was an offspring of English deism, but it 
added nothing to its philosophical thought. 
It took on such low forms of satire and ridi- 
cule and displayed such obvious hatred of 
all religion that it may be compared to the 
bitter intolerance of early pagan assaults 
upon the Gospel. Thomas Paine trans- 
planted some of these low attacks among 
the common people of England and Amer- 
ica. In his best sentiments he was an 
English deist ; but in his opposition to the 
evangelical faith he exhibited the bitterness 
and hatred of Voltaire. 

More dignified and far more subtle and 
profound was the philosophical rationalism 
of Germany, which had genetic connection 
both with English deism and French infi- 

23 



tibe Bew Bpoloaettc 

delity. The Cartesian philosophy was de- 
veloped by Spinoza into a system of pan- 
theism, with its postulate of an eternal and 
infinite substance, manifested in various at- 
tributes and modes. Later came Leibnitz, 
with his theory of monadism, teaching that 
all things contain an imperishable force, 
which is the spontaneous cause of the changes 
and evolutions of the universe. The sub- 
sequent development of speculative philos- 
ophy in Germany, from Kant to Hegel, has 
been often traced. Its pantheistic trend is 
acknowledged, and its general result has 
been to eliminate the biblical idea of the 
miraculous from human history. 

The so-called ** positive philosophy" of 
Comte and his followers teaches that the 
entire race of man, as well as each individ- 
ual, evolves through three successive states 
— the theological, the metaphysical, and the 
positive. In this last state we inquire no 
more after the causes of things, but simply 
observe phenomena and classify the facts 
and laws of the same. It substitutes hu- 
manity for God, utilitarianism for religion 
and the basis of morals, and glories in the 
" worship of humanity." 

To all this we must add a reference to the 

24 



Ibistorical IRetrospect 

so-called * ' conflict between modern science 
and religion." It is alleged that the churchly 
representatives of Christianity are disposed 
to look upon modern science as a trouble- 
some enemy. The most notable point of 
conflict is the picture of creation and the 
origin of man as told in the opening chap- 
ters of the Bible. Such a miraculous crea- 
tion is declared to be inconsistent with the 
doctrines of evolution, which, if not conclu- 
sively proven, are made to appear so prob- 
able that the scientific mind revolts from 
the scriptural revelation. 

II. THE LITERARY-CRITICAL CONFLICT. 

The opposition of philosophy to Chris- 
tianity is based upon its assumed knowledge 
and analysis of the nature of things. But 
the literary - critical attacks are directed 
against the written records which assume 
to contain the special revelation of God to 
men. Most of those who have assailed the 
Christian faith on philosophical grounds 
have also found fault with the writings of 
the Old and New Testaments, when con- 
sidered as authoritative records of divine 
revelation. 

The assault of Porphyry upon the gen- 

25 



TLhc Mew Hpologetic 

uineness of Daniel's propliecies was one of 
the earliest critical attempts to disprove the 
claims of recorded prediction. It was a 
specimen of ancient rationalistic higher crit- 
icism, and maintained that the Book of 
Daniel was no real production of the times 
of the Babylonian exile. The philosophical 
critic pointed out the fact that the minute 
prophecies of the eleventh chapter delineate 
the wars of the Syrian and Egyptian kings 
down to the latter part of the career of An- 
tiochus Epiphanes, and then suddenly be- 
come vague, and end indefinitely. Hence 
the natural conclusion that they were written 
long after the days of Nebuchadnezzar and 
Cyrus, and are examples of prophecy writ- 
ten after the events which it seems to pre- 
dict. This early effort of literary criticism 
appears to have been a more dignified and 
scholarly attack upon the claims of divine 
revelation than any other of that ancient 
time. Porphyry also condemned the cur- 
rent allegorical interpretation, and alleged 
that there were discrepancies and contradic- 
tions in the sacred books. 

In the twelfth century Abelard called at- 
tention to the contradictions of the Scrip- 
tures, but without apparently designing to 

26 



IDistorlcal IRetrospect 

shake the faith of anyone. He noticed the 
corruption of the text, the number of spu- 
rious books, and altog'ether his teaching was 
regarded as so heretical by the leaders of 
the Church that he was prohibited from 
teaching, and his work entitled Sic et Non 
remained unpublished until modem times. 

In 1670 Spinoza anticipated modern criti- 
cal controversies by arguing from internal 
evidences that the Pentateuch could not 
have been written by Moses, but that all 
the books from Genesis to Second Kings 
are one composite work, derived from nu- 
merous ancient sources, self-contradictory 
in many parts, and probably arranged and 
edited in their present form by Ezra. 

The English deists, whose one common 
ground was denial of the supernatural and 
the sufficiency of natural religion, assailed 
the genuineness and authenticity of many 
of the biblical writings. For example, Col- 
lins, in his Discourse of the Grounds and Rea- 
sons of the Christian Religion (1724), not only 
disparaged the trustworthiness of the text 
of Scripture by magnifying the importance 
of the various readings, but also argued 
that Christianity itself, so far as it claims 
to be a fulfillment of Old Testament 

27 



Ube ticw UpolOQCtic 

prophecy, is invalid and false ; lie essayed 
to show how the apostles and early Chris- 
tians accommodated the Messianic prophe- 
cies to the facts of Jesus's life and read 
into them all manner of allegorical and 
mystical meanings ; he maintained that the 
essentials of the Gospel S5^stem are, at 
best, only ideally true, and can be sup- 
ported only by a mystical use of the Scrip- 
tures. Woolston took pains to discover all 
sorts of incongruities and extravagances in 
the Gospel miracles; and, after having 
proven, as he assumes, their incredibility 
as historical facts, he proceeded to point 
out an allegorical meaning in each of the 
miracles which might be useful to anyone 
Vv^ho was not trammeled with the responsi- 
bility of maintainins: the literal sense. 
Others criticised the barbarous cruelty au- 
thorized by the God of Israel in the de- 
struction of the Canaanites. 

This rationalistic handling of the Scrip- 
tures was taken up in Germany and carried 
forward to extremes of refinement unknown 
in other lands. Eiclihorn explained avv^ay 
the miracles of the Old Testament as hyper- 
bolical pictures of natural phenomena or ac- 
commodations of lanofuaofe to oriental modes 

2S 



1b(6tortcaI IRettospect 

of thouglit. Pauliis applied the same method 
of interpretation to the miracles of Jesus. 
The transfiguration was nothing but a 
waking dream of one of the disciples in the 
midst of the glories of sunrise among the 
mountains. The command for Peter to 
cast his hook and from the mouth of the 
fish first caught find money to pay the tax 
meant only that, as Peter was a fisherman, 
he should go and catch enough fish to pay 
the amount of the tribute money required. 

Next followed the mythical theory of 
Strauss, and then the tendency theory of 
Baur, and later still the legendary theory 
of Renan — all of them invented to account 
for the origin of Christianity without admit- 
ting the miraculous. The present passion 
of rationalistic criticism is to analyze the 
various books of the Bible into their origi- 
nal sources. The Pentateuch and all the 
historical books. Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, and 
Zechariah, are resolved into their constitu- 
ent elements and distributed among a num- 
ber of different authors. Even the Apoc- 
alypse of John is brought under the same 
condemnation. The '' synoptic problem " 
is now to discover the literary origin of that 
which is common to Matthew, Mark, and 

o 29 



Zbc IRew HpolOGetic 

Luke, and to work out a scientific explana- 
tion of the portions peculiar to each. 

I need not continue this outline further. 
So far as any of these facts and discussions 
touching the origin, character, and inter- 
pretation of the Scriptures could be con- 
strued to the detriment of Christianity, 
there have not been wanting men and women 
eager to make the most of the case against 
the claims of the evangelical faith. It is 
easy to see, and it ought not to be over- 
looked, that criticisms well directed and en- 
tirely legitimate in themselves may have 
been perverted and employed to antagonize 
truths which, upon deeper study, may be 
found to be unaffected by the substance of 
the criticism. 

III. THE CONFLICT OF COMPARATIVE RE- 
LIGION. 

The antagonism of other religions to 
Christianity is a natural and necessary re- 
sult of the propagation of the Gospel in the 
world. The teaching of Jesus and his 
apostles first provoked the violent opposi- 
tion of the Jewish leaders. They looked 
upon the new religious movement as inim- 
ical to the temple worship, to the laws of 

30 



Iblstortcal IRetrospect 

Moses, and to the honored customs of the 
Israelitish nation. The main question was 
the Messiahship of Jesus. The Christian 
affirmed, the Jew denied. But the first 
Christians were Jews, and their main apol- 
ogy was that Jesus was the Christ of whom 
the prophets had spoken. They insisted 
that Christianity was not essentially antago- 
nistic to the Hebrew faith, but rather sup- 
plementary to it. It was a fulfillment, not 
a destroying, of Moses and the prophets. 
The first statement of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews sets forth the true relation of the 
Gospel to the Old Testament: "God, hav- 
ing of old time spoken unto the fathers in 
the prophets by divers portions and in divers 
manners, hath at the end of these days 
spoken unto us in his Son, whom he hath 
appointed heir of all things." 

But Christianity soon came into contact 
with other religions tolerated in the Roman 
empire. Upon the gods of Greece and 
Rome the early Christian teachers and 
apologists made uncompromising war. They 
ridiculed the idolatry of paganism, and 
found no words too strong for denouncing 
the licentious mysteries of the worship of 
the Greeks. But, though Paul's labors at 

31 



XTbe IPlew Epologetic 

Ephesus led to great commotion among the 
worshipers * ' of the great Diana, and the 
image which fell down from Jupiter," Paul 
was neither a robber of temples nor a 
blasphemer of the goddess Diana (Acts xix, 
35, 37). In his address to the Athenians he 
courteously acknowledged the religion of 
the Greeks, and quoted one of their poets to 
show that men are the offspring of God 
(Acts xvii, 28). Origen, in his treatise 
against Celsus, refers to the religious rites 
of the Egyptians, the Persians, the Scythians, 
and other nations, which Celsus seems to 
have put forward as worthy of as much 
respect as the doctrines of Christianity. 
Whence it appears that the ancient apolo- 
gists were called upon to compare the claims 
of the Gospel with those of many other 
faiths which were then abroad in the world. 
Tertullian asks why the Romans, on whom 
Numa Pompilius laid such a heavy load of 
superstition, should object to the Christians 
worshiping God through Christ? Why 
should not their religious rites receive as 
much respect as those of Orpheus at Pieria, 
Musaeus at Athens, Melampus at Argos, or 
Trophonius in Bceotia? If the acceptance 
and worship of Christ '* transform a man 

S2 



Ibtstortcal IRetrospect 

and make him truly good, there is implied 
in that fact the duty of renouncing what is 
opposed to it as false." ''^ 

The rise of Mohammedanism in the 
seventh century, and its conquests in Asia, 
Africa, and Europe, forced a comparison of 
its claims with those of Christianity. And 
later, after the Crusades had ceased and 
commercial intercourse had sprung up be- 
tween Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans, 
favorable comparisons were sometimes 
made, and in some places a liberal spirit 
showed itself. In the old controversies 
three views are traceable: (i) That all re- 
ligions are low superstitions, grounded in 
fear, and that Moses, Christ, and Moham- 
med were the three greatest impostors of 
the world; (2) that Moses and Christ were 
true prophets of God, and Mohammed was 
an impostor; (3) that Moses and Jesus were 
true prophets, but supplemented and super- 
seded by Mohammed, In 1621 a Persian 
nobleman critically exposed the discrepan- 
cies of the Gospels, attacked the doctrine of 
the Trinity, and defended the divine mis- 
sion of Mohammed. He maintained that, 
so far as Mohammed's doctrines seemed 

* Tertullian, ApoL, xxi. 
33 



Ube t^ew Hpologetic 

opposed to those of Christ, the difference 
was no greater than that between Christ 
and Moses. He also held that the coming 
of Mohammed was foretold in the words of 
Habakkuk (iii, 3) : ' ' God came from Teman, 
and the Holy One from mount Paran. His 
glory covered the heavens, and the earth 
was full of his praise." 

Among the English deists we find Chubb, 
about the middle of the eighteenth century, 
examining the relative claims of Christian- 
ity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism, expos- 
ing elements of error in them all, and re- 
jecting them all as revelations of God to 
man. This was followed in 1791 by the 
famous work of the French atheist Volney, 
entitled The Ruins, or Meditations on the Revo- 
lutions of Empires. He imagines himself 
meditating amid the ruins of Palmyra, when 
there arises before him a vision of nations 
and kingdoms rising and falling, and show- 
ing him, among other things, how all re- 
ligious ideas originate in fear of the ele- 
ments of nature. These are worshiped 
under the symbolism of idols, accompanied 
with the mysteries of priestcraft, and then 
developed into dualism, and thence through 
mythology and pantheism into monotheistic 

34 



Ibtstortcal 1Retro5pect 

Judaism, which adores the soul of the 
world ; and lastly, through Persian and 
Hindu systems, to Christianity, which, after 
all, is only the worship of the sun under the 
mystic name of Christ ! 

In our own time we find the comparative 
study of religions developed into a science, 
and chairs are established in our leading in- 
stitutions for the philosophical treatment of 
this new department of theology. The va- 
rious opinions and comparative estimates of 
religions may be classified under four heads, 
as follows: (i) That which regards all re- 
ligion as superstition and essentially false ; 
(2) that which treats all religions as equally 
divine and authoritative; (3) that which 
holds Christianity to be the only true re- 
ligion, and rejects all other religions as false 
and worthless ; (4) that which recognizes the 
elements of truth in all religions, but main- 
tains that Christianity is the ultimate and 
absolute religion, to which all others must 
sooner or later give way. 

The brief historic sketch just given en- 
ables us at once to observe the range of con- 
troversy taken by those who have made is- 
sue with the claims of Christianity. It is 
evident that we cannot intelligently grapple 

35 



Ube IPlew Bpologetic 

with new issues without some familiarity 
with the old attacks and the old^ apologies. 
It is a fact of incalculable significance that 
Christianity has been on trial now for more 
than eighteen centuries, and if its oppo- 
nents have not yet employed all available 
weapons of assault it must be that they 
have not yet been able to find them. 

Nevertheless, it is generally acknowl- 
edged by men most competent to judge 
that the older apologies are not adapted to 
meet the demands of the present time. In 
making such a statement, however, it is due 
the past and the present to indicate more 
clearly what the admission means. This 
may be sufficiently done for our purpose in 
a few concluding observations. 

I. It must first of all be acknowledged 
that the apologies of the Christian ages, 
taken as a whole, form a magnificent con- 
tribution to the defense of the * * faith once 
delivered to the saints." The literature of 
Christian apologetics constitutes a treasury 
of the best religious thought of the centu- 
ries. It must not, therefore, be imagined 
that the old apologies are useless now. 
Many of them contain arguments of lit- 
tle value and some things unquestionably 

36 



Ibtstorlcal IRetrospect 

erroneous; but that same remark can be 
made in reference to most of the contribu- 
tions made in former time to any depart- 
ment of science. 

2. It should not cause us any surprise or 
alarm to discover that in some things for- 
mer defenders of the faith made mistakes. 
We certainly ought not to assume that a 
defense of the fathers is the same as a de- 
fense of the faith itself. To err is human ; 
and we might well presume in advance that 
zealous advocates of any good cause would 
be likely to fall into occasional blunders. 
In some instances we find that the assailant 
of Christianity was in the right, and its de- 
fender in the wrong. But in such cases it 
will be seen that the apologist confounded 
some nonessential thing with the truth itself. 

3. One of the most glaring mistakes of 
overzealous apologists has been an apparent 
assumption that an opponent of the Gospel 
must needs be a dishonest man. That is a 
weak defense of any cause which goes about 
trying to impeach the motives of an oppo- 
nent who claims to rest his case on valid 
argument. 

4. It will hardly be denied at the present 
time that an earnest and sincere inquirer 

37 



Ube 1Re\v Hpologetic 

after truth may fall into serious error. The 
modern apologist, if he be wise enough to 
learn from the past, will not proceed on the 
assumption that his opponent has no truth 
on his side. The more correct method will 
study to be irenical, rather than polemical. 
One of the qualities which has made Butler's 
Arialogy the immortal book it is is the calm 
philosophical tone in which he shows all 
readiness to concede that his antagonist has 
some reason for his opposition to revealed 
religion. 

5. One very obvious lesson from what 
we see to have been errors of the past is to 
try not to do it again. Bold a priori assump- 
tions, self-confident assertions, and unwill- 
ingness to give patient and impartial study 
to the theories of opponents are always prej- 
udicial to the cause of truth. It is as un- 
desirable as it is unpopular to be found in 
bad company ; yet it is sometimes the case 
that a man of questionable excellence may 
be a zealous advocate of a great truth. We 
shall see, farther on, that the law of gravi- 
tation was at first rejected by good men for 
no better reason than that it was vigorously 
advocated by the infidel Voltaire. We need 
also to be occasionally reminded that great 

38 



Iblstorical IRetrospect 

leaders in tlie Church have insisted on be- 
liefs that ''science laughs at now." 

6. Finally, the principle and method on 
which we must agree to test every new issue 
as it comes is the old apostolic precept, ' * Prove 
all things; hold fast that which is good." 

89 



n 



Zbc IPbilosopbical HpolOG^ 



II 



The Philosophical Apology 

Philosophy, according to the simplest 
meaning of the word, is the love of wisdom. 
The human mind aspires to know things, 
and by observation, reflection, experiment, 
comparison, classification, and reason has 
formulated many principles which are sup- 
posed to furnish a rational explanation of 
the nature of the world. Hence philosophy, 
in the fullest sense, is a product of human 
thought resulting from efforts to determine 
the principles, causes, forces, and laws which 
underlie and explain the facts and phenom- 
ena of being. It is, accordingly, the fun- 
damental science, the science of all sciences, 
and has for its object the ascertainment of 
the truth of things— the whole truth, so far 
as it may be known, and nothing but the 
truth. ^ 

* " There is no province of human experience, there is noth- 
ing in the whole realm of reality, which lies beyond the domain 
of philosophy or to which philosophical investigation does not 
extend. Religion, so far from forming an exception to the 
all-embracing sphere of philosophy, is rather just that province 
which lies nearest to it ; for, in one point of view, religion and 

43 



XTbe t\c\o Hpologetic 

The true religion, therefore, has nothing 
to fear from a true philosophy, but may de- 
rive advantage from it. Christianity chal- 
lenges investigation. She says, '' Prove all 
things ; hold fast that which is good ; " 
"Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever 
things are honorable, whatsoever things are 
just, whatsoever things are pure, whatso- 
ever things are lovely, whatsoever things 
are of good report ; if there be any virtue, 
and if there be any praise, on these things 
exercise reason " (Phil, iv, 8). 

But there has been much philosophy and 
science falsely so called; and also, be it 
said, much religion falsely so called. The 
pure-minded man seeks after that which is 
true both in religion and philosophy, and 
gives respectful attention to rational objec- 
tions made to the things which he holds 
dear. 

Why should there be any conflict be- 
tween philosophy and religion, or between 
science and religion? The answer is that 
Christianity propounds a number of funda- 

philosophy have common objects and a common content, and 
in the explanation of religion philosophy may be said to be 
at the same time explaining itself.** — Caird, PhiLosopky of 
Religion^ p. 3. New York, 1894. 

44 



TLbc ipbilosopblcal Hpolo^^ 

mental doctrines which appear inconsistent 
with fundamental assumptions of certain 
schools of philosophy. Prominent among 
these doctrines are the following: (i) The 
idea of a personal God, Creator and Up- 
holder of all things, infinite in perfections, 
and yet concerned about the welfare of 
mankind; (2) the doctrine of man as a 
child of God, bearing his image, exercising 
free will, and rebelling against his Creator : 
(3) the doctrine of Jesus Christ as an incar- 
nation of God, and giving his life for the 
redemption of sinful men ; (4) the ideas of 
pardon of sin, fellowship with God, and 
everlasting life after death. Such doctrines 
very naturally provoked the opposition of 
Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, and 
through all the Christian ages they have 
been assailed as inconsistent with some 
teaching of philosophy. 

I. DUALISM. 
One of the early systems of philosophy 
which came into conflict with Christianity 
was dualism, which affirms two eternal 
principles as essential to explain the phe- 
nomena of the world. The theory com- 
mends itself to many minds as a very 

45 



Ube IRew Bpolo^etic 

simple way of explaining certain facts 
which all men have observed. The dualism 
of good and evil, so conspicuous in the 
world, seemed to many naturally traceable 
to the dualism of mind and matter. In the 
ancient speculations of Chinese philoso- 
phers there are found traces of this two- 
fold principle of material and immaterial 
causation ; but a more remarkable develop- 
ment of the doctrine is found in the Per- 
sian system known as Zoroastrianism. Two 
antagonistic powers, or principles, are con- 
ceived as the sources of light and darkness, 
good and evil. The good principle is 
called Ormuzd, the evil principle Ahriman. 
This oriental dualism found further de- 
velopment in philosophical discussions of 
the nature of matter and spirit, and led on 
to the notion that spirit must be essentially 
good, and matter essentially evil — a notion 
which powerfully affected religious think- 
ing, and lies at the root of much of the as- 
ceticism of the later Jewish and early 
Christian Churches. We observed in the 
previous lecture how this dualism allied 
itself with Greek philosophy and became 
prominent in the fantastic speculations of 
Gnosticism. It took a powerful hold of 

46 



Ube pbtloaopbtcal Hpolog^ 

Christian thought in the Manichsean 
heresy, and showed itself so subtle as to 
captivate for many years a mind like that 
of Augustine. 

The old Gnosticism and Manichaeism are 
now obsolete, and we are in position to in- 
quire, without passion or prejudice. What 
great truth, if any, is there in dualism that 
so many brilliant minds should ever have 
been captivated by it? Is it not a fact that 
there is a realm of darkness and a realm of 
light? Good and evil force themselves on 
human thought; and these are contrary, 
the one to the other. Here is a real 
dualism, and all thoughtful inquirers after 
truth may well ask for some rational ex- 
planation. We need not wonder that the 
distinction between mind and matter, so 
obvious to human consciousness, was sug- 
gestive to the ancients of two eternal op- 
posites. 

The great, honest question of dualism is 
how to bridge the vast gulf between the 
finite and the infinite, between matter and 
spirit, good and evil. Christianity has 
her simple and ready answer in the revela- 
tion of Jesus Christ. God is spirit, and the 
source of all things. The material world 

47 



XTbe Bew HpolOGettc 

has its ground and reason in him. Moral 
evil is possible only in beings gifted with 
intelligent moral freedom. Such beings 
exist, and by abuse of their exalted gifts 
have originated moral disorder in the uni- 
verse. When, where, and how this dis- 
order first broke out, why God allows its 
existence, what purpose it may possibly 
serve in his infinite world-plan, and how 
the problem of evil is to work itself out in 
the eternal future, no man is able to de- 
clare. But, according to the Gospel, Jesus 
Christ has come into the world as a revela- 
tion of God, and through infinite wisdom, 
power, and love "restoreth all things." 

And this is, in substance, the old stor}'- of 
the cross. It is the Christian philosophy of 
the universe. It is, and always has been, 
either offensive or unsatisfactory to some 
minds. It does not pretend to solve all 
mvsteries ; but it is irreconcilable with that 
dualism which sees in mind and matter 
two eternal opposites, or assumes that 
matter is essentially evil, or that God is 
so separate from the world that he cannot 
be supposed to limit himself into any per- 
sonal contact with man. 

The Christian apologist, however, need 

4a 



Zbc pbllosopbical HpolOQ^ 

not feel any special obligation, as a Chris- 
tian, to define philosophically the nature of 
matter and spirit and to determine the exact 
relations of the two. It is very easy for 
human speculation to transcend all certain 
knowledge. Some Christian philosophers 
need a little wholesome admonition touch- 
ing the limitations of human thought. We 
may feel confident in postulating monism 
against dualism and polytheism. But we 
may well hesitate before the task of eluci- 
dating the mystery of God's relation to the 
material universe. Who is sufficient for 
such a task? 

There are two views now current touch- 
ing the origin of the material world. It 
has been often said that God made the world 
out of nothing. But that statement is extra- 
biblical, and has been called into question 
by many as without foundation in reason 
or philosophy. Others, claiming to be de- 
vout theists, assert the possibility of the 
eternity of matter and conceive it as in 
some sense the eternal abode or manifesta- 
tion of God. They reject the idea of two 
eternals, but affirm that matter has its 
ground of existence in God and is eternally 
dependent upon God. Whatever dualism 

49 



Ube IRew Hpologetic 

such a postulate of reason may imply, it is 
by its own definition the tentative hypoth- 
esis of a reverent monism."^ Before such 
possibilities of thought it seems to me quite 
unnecessary for Christian apologists to take 
alarm. So long as one infinite and eternal 
Mind is acknowledged to be the ground and 
reason of the world, the Christian Faith is 
not disturbed. The revelation of God in 
Jesus Christ offers us no authoritative de- 
liverance on the primordial possibilities of 
matter or of mind. Whether matter was 

* " It seems to us that the theological doctrine of creation 
does not necessarily demand even that the matter of the 
world should have had a beginning at all. It is possible to 
hold that the world owes its existence entirely to the creative 
power of God, and yet at the same time to maintain that the 
world had no historical beginning. . . . We see a ray of 
light emanating from the sun, and we say that the ray owes 
its being to the sun. If it were proved that there never was 
a time in which that ray had not existed it would not in the 
slightest degree shake our conclusion that it owes its existence 
to the sun. What makes it a created or dependent object is 
not the fact that at one time it began to be. but the fact that 
at eveiy time it is simply an emanation — that it has not at any 
moment of its being a spark of heat or light which it does not 
derive from its contact with that source from which it radi- 
ate.^. There is, therefore, no necessary antagonism between 
the doctrine of a divine creation and the doctrine of a world 
whose matter had no historical beginning." — Matheson, Can 
the Old Faith Live n'ith the New ? p. loi. Third ed., Edin- 
burgh, 1889. 

50 



XTbe pbilosopbical Hpolog^ 

originally created out of nothing, or is with- 
out beginning, or is an eternal manifesta- 
tion of God are questions of metaphysics, 
rather than religion. It is wisdom in the 
Christian apologist to refuse to complicate 
the defense of the Gospel with such spec- 
ulative discussions. He is concerned to 
maintain as essential doctrine the great 
revelation that '* there is one God, and one 
Mediator between God and man, Christ 
Jesus, who is before all things, and in whom 
all things hold together" (i Tim. ii, 5; 
Col. i, 17). 

II. MONISM. 

As against dualism, we may for our pres- 
ent purpose resolve all other philosophical 
svstems under one head and call it monism. 
There are three schools of the monistic 
philosophy, commonly known as material- 
ism, idealism, and pantheism. Materialistic 
monism affirms that matter is the only real 
and eternal substance, mind being but a 
product of organization and a mode of mo- 
tion. Human thought is, therefore, only a 
modal function of the brain. Idealistic 
monism holds, on the contrary, that mind 
is the only real substance. The external 

51 



Ube IRew Hpologetlc 

world of sense is but the product of self- 
conscious thought, having no objective real- 
ity apart from the thinking mind. Panthe- 
istic monism identifies mind and matter in 
one eternal universal substance which con- 
stitutes the world of being. God and the 
universe are one, without personality or in- 
telligence. Nature is God, ever changing 
in outward forms, but unalterably fixed in 
modes of operation. Human personality 
and self-consciousness are only temporary 
and incidental phases of the one infinite 
substance. 

I. Let us look, first, at the postulates of 
idealistic monism. It doubtless contains 
some elements of truth ; otherwise it could 
not so powerfully attract truth-loving minds. 
So far as this system affirms that all things 
have their origin and being in one eternal 
Spirit, without whom nothing exists or can 
exist, we offer no opposition, for this state- 
ment is in substance one of the fundamental 
doctrines of our faith. Paul declared to the 
men of Athens that ''the God who made 
the world and all things therein . . . him- 
self giveth to all life, and breath, and all 
things, and ... in him we live, and move, 
and have our being." You may call this 

52 



XTbe pbilosopbtcal Hpology 

idealism if you will, but it is the truth of 
God. Modern apologetics should have no 
controversy with one who is disposed to 
elaborate such an idealistic monism and ad- 
just it to a well-defined system of thought. 
Philosophy may thus prove a helpful hand- 
maid of the Christian faith. But when ideal- 
ism is carried to the extreme of denying the 
reality of the external world, and, with 
Berkeley, insisting that the essence of all 
objects perceptible or conceivable is only an 
idea of the mind ; or, with Fichte, arguing 
that the outer world, the order of nature, 
and the very idea of God himself are self- 
creations of the mind ; or, with Schelling, 
constructing an idealism so transcendental 
as to maintain that God, the absolute Spirit, 
comesgradually to self -consciousness through 
the act of creation and first knows himself 
in man ; or, with Hegel, resolving all things, 
even God himself, into an eternal process 
of becoming, ever unfolding, but never 
unfolded, having no independent self-con- 
sciousness apart from human consciousness, 
but a sort of universal personality, which 
realizes itself in every separate state of hu- 
man consciousness, and which, multiplied 
by the individuals of the race, becomes so 

53 



Ubc IRew Bpologetic 

many different states of one eternal Mind — 
when idealism is carried to such extremes 
we wshrink away from its dream-like theories 
and feel instinctively that they are incon- 
sistent with the facts of our own conscious- 
ness. These theories are not sufficient to 
furnish a satisfactory explanation of the idea 
of God, the reality of the world, and the 
consciousness in man of personal freedom 
and responsible activity. 

2. Let us consider next what materialis- 
tic monism has to say. It is probable that 
the extravagance of modern idealism is 
largely responsible for the remarkable 
prevalence of materialism at the present 
time. Scientific research has in recent 
years disclosed so much in relation to the 
laws and forces of the material world that 
not a few jump to the conclusion that 
natural science may yet account for every- 
thing. There is no room left in nature for 
God. Nature is all the God we are to 
recognize. The childish, unscientific He- 
brew saw Mount Sinai altogether in smoke 
and the whole mountain quaking greatly, 
and he imagined that a personal God de- 
scended upon it in fire and proclaimed 
himself as Jehovah, who brought the 



XTbe lPbil06opbtcal Hpology 

chosen nation out of the house of bondage. 
But some prophets of modern science tell 
us a vast deal about protoplasm, and chem- 
ical affinity, and the correlation of forces, and 
light and heat as modes of motion; and 
they parade all these, like so many golden 
calves, before the simple child of faith and 
say, ''These are thy gods, O Israel, which 
brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." 
According to this theory the universe is 
one material substance, existing in its 
primordial elements from eternity. Matter 
and its properties are all-sufficient to ac- 
count for whatever now exists. Persistent 
and eternal forces inherent in matter are 
the causes of all change and development. 
The origin of life is no greater a mystery 
with the atheistic materialist than is the 
origin of evil with the speculative theolo- 
gian. ''If it were given me," says Hux- 
ley, "to look beyond the abyss of geolog- 
ically recorded time to the still more remote 
period when the earth was passing through 
physical and chemical conditions which it 
can no more see again than a man can re- 
call his infancy, I should expect to be a 
witness of the evolution of living proto- 
plasm from not-living matter. I should 

55 



Ube "Wew Hpologettc 

expect it to appear under forms of great sim- 
plicity, endowed, like existing fungi, with 
the power of determining new protoplasm 
from such matters as ammonium carbon- 
ates, oxalates, and tartrates, alkaline and 
earthy phosphates, and water, without the 
aid of light."* We observe that Huxley 
here assumes everything. He says he 
would '' expect to see " what he has already 
assumed as an essential part of his hypoth- 
esis. By assumption he has put into his 
major premise what he expects to find. 

Thorough-going materialism, moreover, 
maintains that all the activities of human 
thought are merely results of cerebral mo- 
tion. Self -consciousness is but an attribute 
of matter under certain conditions. Feel- 
ing, intelligence, and volition are natural 
functions of the matter of the brain — secre- 
tions, some say, of the brain-substance, 
much as gall is a secretion of the liver. 

These theories of modern materialism do 
not seem to differ essentially from the 
ancient atomic philosophy, w^hich was 

* Critiques and Addresses^ p. 239. This oft-cited pas- 
sage is notable as an exhibition of the stern though mildly 
expressed dogmatism of which an eminent scientist may be- 
come unconsciously possessed. 

56 



XTbe pbiloaopbtcal Hpologi? 

taught by Leucippus and Democritus hun- 
dreds of years before the Christian era. 
Those old lights of science maintained that 
the universe, including all spiritual being, 
consists of indivisible atoms, which, 
through differences of form, position, and 
motion, give rise to all known phenomena 
of matter, life, and mind. But modern 
physical science has analyzed, defined, and 
classified the elements of matter in a man- 
ner utterly unknown to the ancients. 

What attitude, now, should the modern 
Christian apologist hold toward this athe- 
istic philosophy? 

( I ) First of all, we welcome at the hands of 
men of science all real solutions of physical 
phenomena which they are able to pre- 
sent. We hail with joy every new discov- 
ery in the mysteries of nature and the laws 
of the material world. We have no fear of 
the revelations of true science, and most 
cheerfully accept them when they are 
clearly shown. But we know that one may 
be a great scientist and a poor philosopher. 
Many and many a time has it been seen 
that a man may have deep insight into 
some grave question, and yet be purblind 
to another less difficult to solve. 

57 



TLbc IRew Hpoloaetic 

(2) We aver that materialism gives no 
adequate explanation of the nature and 
operations of the human mind. Its hy- 
pothesis of thought as a secretion of the 
brain or a mere mode of action comes far 
short of a sufficient explanation of the facts 
of consciousness, of reason, of long and in- 
tricate trains of argument. Not many 
thoughtful minds will soon accept and be 
satisfied with the idea that Euclid's ele- 
ments of geometry, the epics of Homer 
and Vergil and Milton, or the philosophical 
speculations of Plato and Leibnitz and 
Huxley and Herbert Spencer are nothing 
more than the products of physical motion 
in the gray matter of the brain. 

(3) Materialism gives no adequate expla- 
nation of moral distinctions and the action 
of conscience in the soul of man. Its fun- 
damental principles require that all moral 
conditions and acts of the will be explained 
as necessary results of certain physical move- 
ments of brain and nerves. The difference 
between a criminal and a virtuous man is, 
accordingly, due to some disorder in the 
make-up of the bad man's brain and spinal 
cord. All that we call moral evil is the nat- 
ural result of nervous and muscular disease ! 

58 



Ubc lPbilO0opbtcal HpolOGS 

(4) Materialism empties the facts and phe- 
nomena of religion of all significance and 
value. A personal God, a loving Father of 
the spirits of all flesh, a redeeming Christ, 
and salvation from sin are so many delu- 
sions of the brain. They answer to no 
realities, and therefore the sooner they are 
exploded the better for mankind. 

(5) The assumptions and assertions of 
materialism may be offset by the opposite 
assertions of idealism. It is just as reason- 
able and safe to deny the existence of mat- 
ter as of mind. I think, on the whole, I 
have more sympathy with the idealist than 
with the materialist. If one persistently 
deny the reality of matter we may, perhaps, 
reasonably hope that some day he will dash 
his head against a stone and be converted. 
But what method of persuasion can be ex- 
pected to affect him who denies the reality 
of his own personal existence ? What are 
we to think of reasoning with a man who 
makes great show of reason, and appeals to 
your reason as a reasoning being to prove 
that there is no such thing as a rational 
mind, and what you call reason is the com- 
plex movement of physical atoms over which 
you have no real control? 

59 



Ube IFlew Hpologetlc 

3. Pantheistic monism seeks to avoid the 
extremes of idealism and materialism, and 
yet to appropriate some elements of both. 
According to this theory God and the uni- 
verse are one. But spirit is not reduced to 
a mode of matter ; rather, matter seems to 
be exalted into spirit. The one infinite, 
ho^Yever, is neither matter nor spirit, as 
separate and distinguishable entities. It is 
conceived as one substance or one being, 
according as the idea of matter or of spirit 
is made most prominent. In the system of 
Spinoza, mind and matter are conceived as 
different aspects or attributes of one infinite 
substance. In Hegel's system the infinite 
is conceived rather ideally as spirit, unfold- 
ing and objectifying itself in the processes 
of the universe. So it appears that panthe- 
ists differ in their methods of conceiving the 
nature and manifestation of the infinite. 
But in general it is correct to say that the 
essence of pantheism is the concept of all 
things bound fast in infinite unity. The 
phenomenal world is possessed and pervaded 
by an impersonal, unconscious, or, it may 
be, semiconscious aninia jnundi, or world- 
spirit, which is, nevertheless, identical with 
the world itself. The universe is a mani- 

60 



XTbe iPbilosopbtcal Hpolog^ 

festation of God, and he is the sum total of 
it all. The human spirit is only a transient 
phase or shadow of the infinite, into which 
it is again absorbed, like a bubble bursting 
on the ocean. All causes and events are 
connected by an infinite chain of necessity. 
This pantheistic conception of the uni- 
verse has ever had a charm for thoughtful 
minds. It is traceable in Hindu and Greek 
philosophy ; and many in our day are cap- 
tivated by the idea of divine immanence, 
and the broad and sublime suggestion that 
all phenomena are so many immediate man- 
ifestations of Deity. And there is not a 
little in all this which accords with well- 
known doctrines of the Christian faith. For, 
according to the Scriptures, God is in all 
things and through all things. What a 
pantheist was Jeremiah, who wrote of God 
on this wise : * * Do not I fill heaven and 
earth, saith Jehovah ? Can any hide himself 
in secret places, that I shall not find him? " 
(Jer. xxiii, 24.) Hear also how the Hebrew 
Psalmist speaks : " Whither shall I go from 
thy spirit.^ or whither shall I flee from thy 
presence? If I ascend into heaven, thou art 
there : if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, 
thou art there. If I take the wings of the 

61 



XTbe IFlew Bpologettc 

morning, and dwell in the -uttermost parts 
of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead 
me" (Psalm cxxxix, 7-10). The Hebrew 
heard God's voice in the thunder; the clouds 
were his pavilion ; he caused the grass to 
grow, he filled the trees with sap, and wa- 
tered the hills with his rain. But the differ- 
ence between this Hebrew pantheism and 
that of rationalistic philosophy is the ex- 
treme difference between theism and athe- 
ism. What boots it to call the whole uni- 
verse God, and yet say in the same breath 
that it is a substance or a being without 
conciousness, intelligence, or personality? 
Such a God is no different from the fetich, 
save, perhaps, in imaginable bulk ; and it 
is a remarkable fact, often observed, that 
pantheism in theory begets polytheism in 
practice. 

Against pantheism we may urge nearly 
all the objections we make to materialism. 
It furnishes no adequate philosophy of the 
human mind. It makes our intuitions of 
moral responsibility a pitiable delusion. 
Self-conscious personality, with its hope of 
immortality, is only a delusive dream, and 
destined to sink into nonentity when life's 
fitful fever ends. Pantheism leads logically 

G2 



Ubc pbilosopbical Hpoloo^ 

into a dreary nescience, a stark agnosti- 
cism, which effectually explodes the idea 
of a personal God, and bids us worship the 
universe in^stead. We would say to the ad- 
mirers of this vague system, ** Ye worship 
ye know not what." We do know some- 
thing about matter and its laws ; we know 
something about mind and its operations; 
but what know ye? Substance, being, a 
vast transcendental somewhat, which is 
neither matter nor mind ! Everything tan- 
gible or thinkable is thus transformed into 
one vast phantasm of unreality. 

III. NATURAL SCIENCE. 

In connection with questions of philoso- 
phy we must also notice some aspects of 
what is often called * ' the conflict of science 
and religion." The supposed conflict is 
chiefly in certain interpretations of Scrip- 
ture touching the origin of the world and 
of man. 

About the middle of the sixteenth cen- 
tury Copernicus promulgated the helio 
centric theory of the solar system ; but, 
dying soon after that time, his theory 
attracted no general attention. But half a 
century later a distinguished professor of 

63 



TLbc IRew Hpologetic 

mathematics at Pisa adopted the views of 
Copernicus, and astonished the theologians 
of the Inquisition by presuming to teach 
that the sun was the center of the planetary- 
system, and that the earth revolved both 
on its axis and also around the sun. The 
defenders of the orthodox faith at once pro- 
nounced these views absurd, false in phi- 
losophy, and contrary to the Holy Scrip- 
tures. Galileo was required to kneel down 
in sackcloth, and swear upon the Holy Gos- 
pels never again to teach such heresy. And 
even after submitting to that self-stultifica- 
tion he was for the rest of his life virtually 
treated as a condemned criminal. 

Isaac Newton was born the year that 
Galileo died. His great contribution to 
science was the discovery and elaboration 
of the law of gravitation. But this dis- 
covery brought him into collision with 
theologians, who jumped to the conclusion 
that a theory of holding the universe to- 
gether by means of natural law must logic- 
ally banish God from the world and lead 
to atheism. And, indeed, why should they 
not so judge when such an infidel as Vol- 
taire, who was living in London when 
Newton died, was so enthusiastic over the 

64 



TLbc pbilosopblcal Hpoloo^ 

idea that he went back to France and 
labored hard to propagate the Newtonian 
philosophy on the continent of Europe? 
Behold, said some zealous apologists of the 
Christian faith, how a blasphemous infidel 
is pleased with Newton's theory! That 
one fact alone was quite sufficient in the 
minds of many to condemn the law of 
gravitation, and smirch the theological 
soundness of all who accepted it. 

Contemporaneously with Newton's dis- 
coveries and continuing into our time, the 
conflict between Genesis and geology has 
attracted the attention of Christian apolo- 
gists. Scientific research has long since 
concluded that the world was not created 
in six days, and the labor of apologists for 
the last hundred years has been to reconcile 
this conclusion with the statements of the 
Book of Genesis. It may be useful for 
some of us to remember that ardent de- 
fenders of the Bible once insisted that the 
fossils in the rock were originally created 
there just as they now appear! Others 
argued that they were deposited at the 
time of the deluge. The dogmatic as- 
surance with which some very able theo- 
logians have been wont to speak on such 

65 



TOe IRew Hpolooetic 

subjects may be seen in the following 
statement of Richard Watson, first pub- 
lished about seventy years ago : ' ' On the 
antiquity of the human race geology has 
been compelled already to give its testi- 
mony to the accuracy of Moses, and the 
time is probably not far distant when a 
similar testimony will be educed from it as 
to the antiquity of the globe." * 

But in spite of all such deliverances, 
what is the testimony of science to-day? 
Not only the immense antiquity of the 
globe, but also the antiquity of man on the 
earth far back of the period once com- 
monly supposed, is now the prevalent 
opinion of scientific men ; and not only the 
antiquity of man, but his evolution from 
preexistent organic forms of a lower order. 
Evolution is now the commanding hypothe- 
sis, and idealism, materialism, and panthe- 
ism all alike employ its facts and postulates 
to establish their several theories of the 
universe. The science of biology also 
adds its strong testimony to confirm the 
theory of evolution; and so the origin of 
all organic forms, both of animal and vege- 
table life, is brought under the domain of 

* Theological Institutes^ vol. i, p. 25 1. 
66 



Ube pbllosopbical Hpologp 

natural law, and the idea of immediate in- 
stantaneous creation by an extraordinary, 
miraculous act of God seems about to be 
relegated to the notions of a defunct 
theology. 

There is, perhaps, no living issue of 
philosophy or science with which Christian 
apologetics may be supposed to have greater 
concern at the present time than with 
the postulates of evolution. Many among 
us look upon the whole theory as inconsist- 
ent with the biblical doctrine of creation 
and inimical to the Christian faith. Here, 
then, is a grave question. How are we, as 
theologians and apologists, to deal with the 
doctrines of evolution ? 

One way is to follow the example of the 
older theologians, who promptly met and 
refuted the Copernican theory and the law 
of gravitation and the doctrines of geology 
by the confident assertion that the new- 
fangled theory is preposterous, false in 
philosophy, and contrary to the Holy Scrip- 
tures ; that is, we may reduce the issue to 
this sole alternative — either to reject evolu- 
tion or give up the Bible and the Christian 
faith. But would it be a sign of wisdom, 
or of folly, to hazard our religion on an 

61 



XTbe Iricw HpoloGCttc 

issue like that? Have we learned nothing 
from Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton? Does 
any man of sober sense believe to-day that 
such a question can be settled by bold as- 
sertion or by votes? 

There is another and, I think, far better 
way to meet such questions. It would 
have been better had some of those theo- 
logians who opposed Galileo and New^ton 
reasoned on this wise : ' * Is it not possible 
that God has arranged the solar system in 
just such a manner as Copernicus and Gali- 
leo say, and may he not be running it 
night and day, year in and year out, on 
that very plan ? May we not conceive God 
as * upholding all things by the word of his 
power,' and also in perfect harmony with 
the law of gravitation?" The discreet 
apologist will take a similar attitude touch- 
ing the hypothesis of evolution. Why 
should we deem it a thing incredible that 
God created the universe and all that is in 
it in perfect harmony with the laws and 
processes of evolution ? Is it not as reason- 
able to believe that God brought all things 
into existence by a law of evolution as that 
he continually upholds all things by a law 
of gravitation ? 

68 



Zl)c pbtlosopbtcal Hpology 

I, for one, maintain that the only proper 
method of treating such questions is to 
leave them open to full and free discussion. 
Many among us are strong in the convic- 
tion that the evolution of man from a 
lower order of animal life has not been 
proven. But the same thing was once 
properly and truly said of the Newtonian 
law of gravitation. If the doctrine of 
evolution be false we can safely leave it to 
the searching tests of free investigation 
and debate. If untrue, it will sooner or 
later come to naught. But if it be true ye 
cannot overthrow it, and may be found to 
be fighting against God. 

But some man will say, ** Evolution con- 
tradicts the biblical record of creation by 
the word of God." That, however, is a 
matter of interpretation. There are more 
ways of explaining the first chapters of 
Genesis than there are of setting aside the 
facts and arguments of vScience. Where is 
the scholar who now holds to the literal 
interpretation of the first chapter of the 
Bible? We have the geological explana- 
tion, which aims to show that the six days 
correspond with so many eras of develop- 
ment in the crust of the earth. Then we 

69 



tibc IPlew Hpologetic 

have the cosmological explanation, based 
on the nebular hypothesis of the universe, 
which makes the days so many seons of 
cosmical evolution. There also is the res- 
titution theory of Chalmers, which puts the 
ages of geology between the first and 
second verses of the chapter, and tries to 
explain the rest literally. And there is 
John Pye Smith's hypothesis of a local cre- 
ation ; and also the poetical interpretation, 
which sees in the picture of six days of 
labor and the sabbath rest an ideal or sym- 
bolical representation of great religiou 
truths. These numerous theories show 
that it is much easier to adjust the biblical 
record to a scientific hypothesis than it is 
to refute the hypothesis. We know that 
unique literary compositions are capable of 
various explanations, but we cannot so 
easily twist the testimony of the solid 
rocks. 

The most explicit statement of Genesis 
touching the creation of man is the familiar 
passage, ''The Lord God formed man of 
the dust of the ground, and breathed into 
his nostrils the breath of life ; and man 
became a living soul." Does this scripture 
at all determine just how God created man ? 

10 



TLbc lpbilO0opbtcal Hpolog^ 

The more carefully you examine it the 
more certainly will you find that it is 
remarkably indefinite on just those points 
where you would like particular informa- 
tion. The theistic evolutionist declares 
that the language admirably accords with 
his theory. It teaches that man is a prod- 
uct of the organic union of matter and of 
life, and, therefore, he most naturally 
speaks of '' mother earth " and Father God. 
But how long a time it was during which 
God was forming that dust into the organ- 
ism of a human body, and how long there- 
after he breathed therein before the man 
became a living soul, are questions on 
which neither this scripture nor any other 
has a word to say. For aught that any 
one can prove to the contrary, the prepara- 
tion of the dust may have required a 
million years, and God may have been 
breathing into his nostrils another million 
years before he completed the evolution of 
the first human soul. 

IV. AGNOSTICISM. 

There are many questions of philosophy 
and science which cannot in the limits of 
this lecture be so much as mentioned. But 

11 



Zbc IRew HpolOGCtic 

I will in conclusion make a passing allusion 
to agnosticism. The earliest commingling 
of Christianity and speculative philosophy 
produced the systems of gnosticism. Is it 
too much to hope that, as gnosticism was 
one of the first philosophical troublers of the 
Christian faith, the agnosticism of the nine- 
teenth century may be the last ? Gnosticism 
assumed to know almost everything ; agnos- 
ticism insists on knowing nothing of the 
power that is back of all phenomena. The 
ground of all things, the ultimate source 
of being, says Herbert Spencer, is unknow- 
able, and we may not ascribe to it our no- 
tions of personality. 

A careful study of the assumptions, both 
of gnosticism and agnosticism, may perhaps 
suggest to us something more rational and 
satisfactory than either of these systems has 
been able to furnish mankind. The world 
of thinking people, in spite of all the asser- 
tions of agnosticism, will probably go right 
on believing and saying that there is all the 
difference in the world between knowing 
everything and knowing nothing. There 
is between these unknowable extremes an 
immense territory of which we know a great 
deal, and there is to our thought a marvel- 

72 



XTbe pbilosopbical Hpolo^^ 

ous degree of the manifestation of God in 
it all.* 

We may all, however, derive some profit- 
able hints from agnosticism. It is well for 
the Christian apologist to remember that, 
according to the Scriptures, no man can ex- 
pect to find out the Almighty to perfection. 
Let us acknowledge with becoming humility 

* Matheson observes that gnosticism and agnosticism " both 
take it for granted that the essence of God is his infinitude ; 
and from that premise they quite logically conclude that, if 
infinitude cannot be known, God is therefore unknowable. 
But we deny that the essence of God is infinitude. Infinitude 
is not an essence ; it is a quality or attribute ; it is a certain 
degree of intensity possessed by an object already existing. 
. . . Were we to ask a seeker after God what he is seek- 
ing, and were he to answer that he was in search of the infi- 
nite, we should again ask, ' The infinite what ? Is it the in- 
finite universe, or the infinite void or the infinite mind?' A 
man may seek the infinite without seeking God. Infinitude 
is a quality that belongs to time and space, and perhaps to mat- 
ter itself. That which makes God different from time and 
space and matter is not his infinitude, but his nature ; and 
therefore to know God is not to know his infinitude, but to 
know his nature. Paradoxical as it may sound, it is as a finite 
and not as an infinite being that God must be known. We 
must form a definite conception of what he is, and then we 
shall be at liberty to extend that conception indefinitely. If 
the result of our efforts to extend it should only be to teach us 
the impossibility of exhausting its contents, we shall at least 
have the satisfaction of knowing that our inability to compre- 
hend God's infinitude has been taught us by our knowledge 
of the nature of God himself." — Can the Old Faith Live with 
the New ? pp. 63-66. 

73 



^be 1Rew Hpolooettc 

the limitations of human thought ; for some 
are disposed to be ' ' wise above what is 
written." We have sometimes been tempted 
to think that to certain overzealous and dog- 
matic defenders of our faith it would be a 
benefit to be a little more agnostic. 

What may we now conclude as to the true 
method of philosophical apologetic? We 
answer : 

1 . Nothing will be achieved by denunci- 
ation and proscription. The well-informed 
and truly able apologist will abstain from 
everything that assumes the air of supercil- 
ious antagonism to systems of speculative 
thought which have engaged the best en- 
ergy of the most powerful minds. God for- 
bid that we should speak with contempt of 
men like Spinoza and Hegel and Huxley 
and Herbert Spencer, and deny the sincerity 
of their inquiries after truth. The fact that 
they have not been persuaded of the truth 
of doctrines we hold dear should admonish 
us of what Butler's Analogy emphasized, 
namely, that the evidences of Christianity 
belong to the class called probable, not de- 
monstrative, 

2. Let us not refuse to take from any and 
all these schools of philosophy whatever 

74 



Zbc lpbil06opbical Hpolog^ 

may help us to a better knowledge of the 
truth. We may learn something from dual- 
ism, and idealism, and materialism, and 
pantheism, and agnosticism. The true phil- 
osophical apology takes cognizance of all 
opposing theories, concedes whatever truth 
is apparent in any of them, and welcomes it 
for its own sake. Able Christian apologists 
have sometimes fallen into error, and their 
opponents have been clearly in the right. 
Let us not forget that some opinions once 
denounced as heresy were subsequently 
found to be in harmony with the law and 
the prophets. After the way which some 
call heresy, so now worship we the God of 
our fathers. 

3. It behooves us, especially in philosoph- 
ical discuSvSions, to avoid confusing things 
that differ. Passion and prejudice are too 
often allowed to sway the judgment. We 
may hastily reject a great truth for no better 
reason than that it is heralded by a Voltaire 
or a Thomas Paine. In his work on T/ie 
Miraculous Element in the Gospels (p. 27), 
Professor Bruce makes the following obser- 
vation, which I think is an excellent illus- 
tration of the spirit and the attitude of the 
true apologist : * * It is very important to 

75 



ITbe IFlew Hpologetic 

grasp the truth that modern agnosticism 
and the doctrine of evolution, though often 
associated in fact, are by no means insepara- 
ble. An impression to the contrary might 
readily mislead the advocate of Christian 
theism into a precarious policy of uncom- 
promising antagonism to prevalent scientific 
views concerning the origin of the world, as 
if to refute these were a matter of life and 
death. I, for my part, have no sympathy 
with such a view of the apologist's present 
duty. I feel no jealousy of the doctrine of 
evolution, and see no occasion for cherish- 
ing such a feeling. I do not profess com- 
petency to pronounce on the scientific pre- 
tensions of the doctrine; but I am very 
sensible of the grandeur of the view which 
it presents of the universe, and I am not 
indispOvSed to accept it as truth, and to ac- 
knowledge the obligation thence arising to 
adjust our whole mode of thinking on reli- 
gious questions to the new situation." 

4. It ought not to be a matter of regiet 
that some old arguments, once deemed con- 
clusive, give place to other modes of thought. 
It is rather the sign of life and power in a 
system that it can adjust itself to new con- 
ditions. It has come to pass that the time- 

76 



Ubc lPbilO0opb(cal Hpolog^ 

honored argument from design, that most 
popular of all arguments to ' ' prove the ex- 
istence of God from the light of nature " — 
even that old teleological argument has 
fallen into disrepute ; for pessimists employ 
it to show that, if an intelligent Designer 
planned the world of animal life, the greater 
part of the evidence in hand goes to show 
him up as a mighty, malevolent Gorilla, 
rather than a benevolent Creator. And so, 
in the hands of a Schopenhauer or a Hart- 
mann, the argument is made to prove to 
some men's minds that, if this world is not 
the worst possible world, it is wholly bad. 

5. Finally, the Christian apologist can 
afford to be liberal. His wisest method is 
that of philosophical calmness and sobriety. 
No good comes from denouncing and exas- 
perating men whom we think to be in 
error. It is better, if possible, to make 
friends of them. I would say to the ideal- 
ist, the materialist, and the pantheist: 
**You have taken hold of great truths. 
Your systems contain elements which have 
arrested the attention of philosophic minds 
in all ages. But, I beseech you, observe 
that the Christian concept of God and the 
world accounts for more of the facts in 

17 



Ube IRew Hpologetic 

question than any other. The biblical 
idea of God and the world has been on 
probation for several millenniums, and 
claims to be more simple, more compre- 
hensive, and more rational than any other 
philosophy of the universe." 

We do not forget that many deceivers 
have gone out into the world. It is also 
true that many a seeker after truth has 
missed his mark. The only safe and proper 
method of procedure with all the issues 
raised by philosophy and science is that 
of the old Christian proverb, '' Prove all 
things; holdfast that which is good." 

18 



m 

QL[)t Cttcrarg-Crittcal ^pologg 



XEbe Xiterars^Cnttcal Hpologi? 



Ill 



The Liter ary-Cfitical Apologfy 

Biblical criticism is as old as the bibli- 
cal canon. A generation before our Lord 
was born the rabbinical schools of Hillel 
and Shammai disputed over the rank and 
sacredness of the Books of Ecclesiastes and 
the Song of Solomon and Ruth and Es- 
ther and Ezekiel. The old Church histo- 
rian Eusebius records the doubts existing 
in his day touching the genuineness of the 
Epistles of James, Second Peter, Second 
and Third John, and the Book of Revela- 
tion. In the discussion of the authonship 
of John's Apocalypse, Dionysius, Bishop of 
Alexandria, produced one of the finest 
specimens of higher criticism extant, tak- 
ing the ground that the book was not the 
work of the apostle. 

To many it may seem strange that such 
criticism should ever have been regarded 
as inimical to the Christian faith. But to 
understand its reason we must note that 
back of all literary criticism there are cer- 
tain philosophical principles. Critical at- 

81 



XLbc flew Hpologetic 

tacks upon the Bible usually assume some 
postulate of philosophy. The allegorical 
method of interpretation was the result 
of influences which Greek and oriental 
philosophy had exerted on the minds of 
Alexandrian Jews. The mythical theory, 
as applied by Strauss to the interpretation 
of the Gospels, is a logical outgrowth of 
certain doctrines of the Hegelian philoso- 
phy. The creation of the world in six 
days, the universality of the flood, the sun 
and moon standing still at the command of 
Joshua, when taken as narratives of fact, 
prejudice philosophical and scientific men 
against the Bible and provoke assaults 
upon the credibility of such narratives. 

The oppositions of criticism are also pro- 
voked by extravagant claims which are 
sometimes made for the Bible. Since the 
time of the Reformation the Holy Scrip- 
tures have been exalted by Protestants, and 
declared to be the only and infallible rule of 
faith and practice. This seemed to be a 
natural and necessary offset to the Romish 
claim of an infallible Church. Whatever 
truth there is in the doctrine of an infallible 
Bible, it is so mixed up with corollaries 
of questionable soundness that one hardly 

82 



TLbc Xiterar^==(Irltxcal Hpologi^ 

knows just what is really claimed for the 
Holy Scriptures as a record of divine reve- 
lation. What authority is there to-day in 
Protestantism to decide for us precisely 
what ** inspiration" means? 

When men in the sixteenth and seven- 
teenth centuries were formulating creeds 
and confessions of the Protestant faith they 
found occasion to declare the divine 
authority of the Holy Scriptures. It was 
generally assumed that a book- revelation 
from God must needs be perfect and in- 
fallible. The next step was to affirm that 
every part of this sacred volume was 
equally inspired. This proposition seemed 
further to require that every word and let- 
ter, and even the vowel points, were in- 
spired of God. All this was very logical. 
Once assume absolute perfection of the 
book, and what remains but to insist that 
every jot and tittle must partake of the 
divine perfection? 

But these teachings soon led to bitter con- 
troversy. Scholars observed that the Greek 
of the New Testament lacked the perfec- 
tion and elegance of the old Attic writers. 
Whereupon the so-called purists took alarm, 
and learned enthusiasts, assuming that a 

83 



XTbe flew Hpologetic 

contrary opinion necessarily impeached the 
honor of God's word, insisted, in the face 
of glaring facts, that the New Testament 
Greek was as pure and elegant as the clas- 
sical Greek. And that controversy was kept 
up for a hundred years ! 

Along with this contest came also that 
other about the inspiration of the vowel 
points of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Bux- 
torfs, the greatest Hebrew scholars of that 
day, maintained this supposed necessary 
adjunct of the current doctrine of inspira- 
tion ; and one of the Swiss Confessions em- 
bodied it as an article of the Christian faith. 
Was the argument not a simple and con- 
clusive one ? The written word is a perfect 
word, for it is the gift of God ; the vowel 
points are a portion of this written word ; 
therefore, the points are inspired. 

But this kind of faith met a more serious 
trial when, a little later, the science of lower 
criticism began its work of comparing the 
ancient manuscripts and discovering thou- 
sands of various readings in the different 
copies of the New Testament. The ene- 
mies of the Bible seized upon these facts 
and used them to cast doubt and uncertainty 
upon the sacred records. Then there were 

84 



Ube Xiterarp^Crittcal HpoloG^ 

paroxysms of alarm. Those who argued 
that every word and letter was inspired felt 
the ground giving way under them. If the 
Almighty infallibly dictated the words of 
the original autographs, why has he not 
preserved them? 

Another form of attack was made on the 
ground of immoralities alleged to be sanc- 
tioned by the Bible. The polygamy of the 
patriarchs and of David and of Solomon ; 
the apparent indorsement of slavery in the 
laws of Moses ; the barbarous destruction of 
the Canaanites by the command of God ; the 
vow of Jephthah, and the inhuman sacrifice 
of his daughter — these and other like mon- 
strosities recorded in the Old Testament were 
declared utterly incompatible with the idea 
that the Scriptures are the pure word of God. 

Other attacks were based upon the alleged 
discrepancies of the Bible. Statements in 
the Books of Samuel and Kings do not 
agree with the parallel passages in Chroni- 
cles. The Gospels also contain conflicting 
and irreconcilable accounts of the same 
transaction." And, finally, the old attack 
of Porphyry on the genuineness of the Book 
of Daniel is revived in these latter days, and 
not on Daniel only, but also on Isaiah and 

85 



TLbc IRevv Hpologetic 

Zechariah. The Mosaic authorship of the 
Pentateuch is set aside, and Ecclesiastes 
and the Song of Songs are no longer at- 
tributed to Solomon. 

In view of these inroads of criticism, the 
devout Christian who accepts and loves his 
Bible as the word of God may easily become 
perplexed, and ask if, after such a sweep of 
criticism, there is anything left of the old 
Bible worth holding fast. Our concern is to 
know how to meet the questions raised by 
this kind of criticism. There are thousands 
of thousands among us who have found the 
Bible a most precious treasure. To every- 
one who has learned to appreciate its heav- 
enly truths it is indeed the very word of 
the Lord. His soul kindles into holy flame 
as he reads the story of Abraham and Jacob, 
of Joseph and Moses, of Samuel and David. 
The Psalms are heavenly manna to his heart. 
The prophets are so many voices of God to 
his soul, and their visions carry him away 
into the heavenly places. In his New Tes- 
tament he comes face to face with the Lord 
Jesus as with a familiar friend. Peter and 
James and John and Paul speak to him as 
so many apostles of the risen Saviour and 
instruct him in the ways of life. What a 

86 



Ube Xtterar^^Crtttcal Hpolog^ 

shock may one of these devout readers feel 
if you say to him : * * There are more than 
a hundred thousand various readings in the 
different manuscripts of the New Testament, 
and no man can now say for certain just 
what were the words of Jesus or of Paul or 
of John in several texts which you have 
loved and written on your heart. The clos- 
ing words of the Lord's prayer — * Thine is 
the kingdom, and the power, and the glory * 
— are not found in the most ancient copies, 
and there is almost conclusive evidence that 
they formed no part of the prayer as Christ 
gave it. The beautiful story of the angel 
that went down at certain seasons and trou- 
bled the waters of Bethesda (John v, 3, 4) is 
an interpolation ; and the same is true of 
the oft-cited story of the woman taken in 
adultery (John viii, i-ii)." 

In view of such results of the scientific 
study of the Scriptures, is it any wonder 
that some cry out: " Away with your sci- 
ence ! Away with your criticism ! You are 
tearing my dear old Bible to pieces ; nay, 
ye are taking away my Lord, and I know 
not where ye will lay him!" If the lower 
criticism work such unhappy results, what 
must the higher criticism do? 

87 



XTbe Bew Hpolocietic 

The Christian apologist, however, can- 
not avoid the demands of scientific criti- 
cism. What shall he do with these 
questions of texts and dates and authors? 
And what attitude shall the Christian min- 
ister assume on the subject? There are 
three ways of dealing- with the claims of 
biblical criticism, some one of which we 
shall be obliged to follow : 

I. We may ignore them and keep still 
about the whole subject of literary crit- 
icism. Some deem this best. Do not dis- 
turb the peace of pious souls, they say; 
they know nothing about these things; 
they are not able to understand the argu- 
ments and proofs employed, and will not 
be benefited by any attempts to make 
them wiser. Such a policy of silence, I 
doubt not, is good for certain times and 
places. It may be properly observed in 
the ordinary worship of the Church. Com- 
mon discretion should prevent a minister 
from parading such topics before a promis- 
cuous audience. There are even consider- 
able portions of the Bible itself w^hich are 
not suitable for public reading in the con- 
gregation. But are we to abstain from 
meddling with these matters at all times 

88 



Ubc Xiterar^:*(Itttical Hpology 

and places? That would be a deathblow 
to all biblical science, and, in its very na- 
ture, self -stultifying. Such a principle of 
silence is unworthy of men who love the 
truth. 

2. Another way of dealing with the mat- 
ter is to wage open warfare against the 
results of criticism. So the purists of the 
seventeenth century did with the belief 
that the language of the New Testament is 
not as pure as the classical Greek. So 
others did with the denial of the inspiration 
of the vowel points. And so did others 
deal with the Copernican system and the 
law of gravitation. But is it a sign of wis- 
dom or of honor for the defenders of 
Christianity to keep up, age after age, that 
kind of warfare? 

3. I venture to say that there is a more 
excellent way. On such questions as those 
now under consideration warfare is clearly 
out of place. We cannot determine just 
what Jesus or Paul said by a tilt at arms. 
The fate of our modern Israel, so far as it 
depends on settling matters of criticism, 
cannot be decided by a duel between any 
modern David and Goliath. The conflict, 
if any, belongs to a different world of 

89 



Ube IRew Hpologettc 

action. Assertions, boasts, threats all go 
for nothing here. It is simply a subject 
for careful inquiry and calm, intelligent 
judgment. What are the facts, and what 
is the truth about them ? 

In attempting to present some of the 
facts and methods of the higher criticism I 
submit two propositions: (i) That the prin- 
cipal facts and conclusions of criticism may 
be so presented to persons of ordinary intel- 
ligence as not to disturb their faith, even 
though they overturn some of their cher- 
ished opinions ; (2) that those questions of 
criticism which are not settled, or not 
capable of being absolutely settled by 
means within our reach, should never be 
recognized in Christian apologetics as fun- 
damental or essential to our faith in Christ. 
I shall resolve these two propositions into 
one as I proceed, in some detail, to show 
what higher criticism claims as facts, how 
they may be fairly stated, and what rela- 
tion they sustain to modern apologetics. 

I begin with the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
Ancient tradition assigns its authorship to 
Solomon. At the beginning of the book 
we read, **The words of the Preacher, the 
son of David, king in Jerusalem." In the 

90 



XTbe Xiterari^^Crittcal BpolOGp 

twelfth and thirteenth verses of the same 
chapter the writer says : * * I the Preacher 
was king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I 
gave my heart to seek and to search out by 
wisdom concerning ail things that are done 
under heaven/' This language certainly 
has all the appearance of a direct claim by 
the author to be Solomon, the son of David. 
And yet, with almost complete unanimity, 
the great critics of our day regard the book 
as one of the latest compositions of the Old 
Testament. Harman's Introduction, which 
the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church prescribe as a regular study of all 
candidates for the ministry, says: *' There 
can be little doubt that it is the latest book 
of the canon, and could not have been 
written earlier than the time of Malachi; 
but in all probability it was written still 
later'* (p. 318). Adam Clarke, the time- 
honored authority in Wesleyan exegesis, 
says that the attempts to overthrow the evi- 
dences of a post-exile date are * * often trifling 
and generally ineffectual." 

In this one example now before us we 
have a fair illustration of the nature of 
higher criticism. I have sometimes won- 
dered that those who make the loudest out- 

91 



Ubc 1Rew HpolOGetlc 

cry against sucli criticism when directed 
upon the Pentateuch and Isaiah seem never 
to have heard of this remarkable onslaught 
on Ecclesiastes. In the face of the asser- 
tions of the book itself, we are told by 
cautious and conservative scholars that the 
work cannot be reasonably believed to be 
the composition of Solomon. Their reasons 
for this conclusion are mainly of three 
kinds: (i) The Hebrew in which the book 
is written belongs to the latest period of the 
literature. This, of course, is a matter of 
which the unlearned reader cannot judge. 

(2) The tone, style of thought, forms of ex- 
pression, social and political allusions are 
incompatible with what is elsewhere writ- 
ten of the character and reign of Solomon. 

(3) The old Jewish literature abounds with 
books which bear an assumed name. Such 
are the Psalms of Solomon, the Apocalypse 
of Baruch, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the 
Book of Enoch, which Jude quotes in his 
epistle. In the Old Testament Apocrypha, 
First and Second Esdras and the Wisdom 
of Solomon belong to the same class. 
There are also other reasons which are not 
readily explained to one who is not trained 
in the details of literary criticism. It is 

92 



Ubc Xiteran^s^Cnttcal Hpolog^ 

important to observe that the later Jewish 
writers, also, were much given to the pro- 
duction of compositions bearing an assumed 
name. And this kind of literature is found 
among other peoples. The dialogues of 
Plato purport to be conversations between 
Socrates and his disciples ; but we all under- 
stand that they are the idealized language 
of an idealized Socrates. 

Such are the main grounds for rejecting 
the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
Whether or no they are sufficient to prove 
the proposition I shall not here attempt to 
say. But, so long as they have convinced the 
majority of truth-loving scholars, it is not 
expedient to withhold the knowledge of the 
facts from the people out of fear of disturb- 
ing the faith of some pious souls. Nor is it 
wise to go about declaring that all who do 
not accept the genuineness of Ecclesiastes 
are destructive critics, traitors in the Lord's 
camp, undermining the faith of the Church, 
and sowing the seeds of infidelity. 

The facts being as I have stated, the 
question of apologetics is simply how to 
adjust the biblical revelation to such con- 
ditions. There could be no difficulty in 
the case but for the assumption which some 

93 



Zbc Bew Hpoloaetic 

make that it is incompatible with the dig- 
nity and purpose of Holy Scripture that 
it should contain a pseudograph. They are 
hasty to declare that, if the book is not 
the work of Solomon, it is a sheer forgery. 
But is that the only alternative? Is it a 
mark of wisdom for the apologist to force 
that issue? Might not the student of 
Greek literature as truly say, ''If the dia- 
logues of Socrates, as reported by Plato, 
are not the real sayings of the great philoso- 
pher, they must be forgeries?" Where is 
the necessity of insisting that the Bible 
cannot be set in the same forms of literary 
composition which are found among all 
cultivated peoples? It is beyond contro- 
versy that the Scriptures were given at 
different times and in many different forms. 
It has been the boast of apologists that the 
Bible, as a body of rich and varied litera- 
ture, is without a rival in the world. Wh}^ 
then, should not some of its parts have 
been given in the idealistic way so common 
in other literatures? Those who affirm that 
the Bible cannot contain a book that as- 
sumes another than its real author's name 
do so on the assumption of their own com- 
petency to declare, a priori^ what the Bible 

94 



Ube Xtterar^s^Crittcal Hpolo^^ 

ouglit to be. The only sound and scien- 
tific method is, first, to make a careful sur- 
vey of all the facts in question, and then 
proceed to formulate conclusions and 
theories according to the facts ; not, first, to 
set up an a priori dogma as to what the 
Bible cannot be supposed to contain, and 
then force opposing facts into agreement 
with the self-made dogma. 

Let us next examine the Book of Prov- 
erbs and see how the same disturbing issues 
meet us there also. The book begins with 
the title, " The proverbs of Solomon the 
son of David, king of Israel." Most read- 
ers on opening the book would naturally 
suppose that these words apply to the en- 
tire collection of proverbs at the head of 
which they stand. But we find upon ex- 
amination that this book contains at least 
eight different collections of proverbs, each 
with a different heading. One collection 
is attributed to Agur, the son of Jakeh 
(xxx, i), and another is entitled ''The 
words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that 
his mother taught him" (xxxi, i). An- 
other large collection is said to be * ' prov- 
erbs of Solomon, which the men of Heze- 
kiah king of Judah copied out" (xxv, i). 

95 



TLbc Bew Hpologettc 

Hezekiah lived some three hundred years 
after Solomon, from which it appears that 
the Book of Proverbs, as we now have 
it, is a compilation made centuries after 
the time of the famous son of David. You 
might easily disturb a devout reader of the 
Bible by merely calling his attention to 
these facts and offering him no explana- 
tion. But there the facts are, clearly 
recorded in the book itself; and yet thou- 
sands have never in their reading stopped 
to think how utterly inconsistent they are 
with the title of the book placed at the 
head of the first chapter. In i Kings iv, 
32, it is said that Solomon *' spake three 
thousand proverbs;" but this book con- 
tains in all only nine hundred and fifteen 
verses. What has become of the greater 
portion of those spoken by the wise king? 
Taking now the Book of Proverbs for 
both proofs and illustrations, why should 
we have any embarrassment or trouble in 
teaching to old or young the following 
things? I. The title placed at the begin- 
ning of a book in the Bible is not necessa- 
rily a sure witness as to all that the book 
contains. Along with this Book of Prov- 
erbs ascribed to Solomon there is bound up 

96 



XTbe Xlterar^s:(rritical Hpology 

much other matter from various authors. 
2. This book contains the clearest evidence 
within itself of having been compiled cen- 
turies after the death of the wise man to 
whom it is customary to attribute all the 
proverbs. 3. There is no sufficient evi- 
dence to prove that Solomon was the real 
author of any considerable number of the 
proverbs of this book. He may have been 
only a collector of proverbs. As the Book 
of Ecclesiastes says of him, '' Because the 
preacher was wise, he . . . sought out, 
and set in order many proverbs " (xii, 9). 
4. The proverbs themselves are not de- 
pendent for their value on any of these 
questions of authorship. *'Go to the ant, 
thou sluggard ; consider her ways, and be 
wise," is just as wholesome advice and as 
profitable for instruction in righteousness 
whether first uttered by some one a thou- 
sand years after Solomon or a thousand 
years before him. If anyone say that this 
is detracting from the glory of Solomon, 
it is quite sufficient to answer that he 
stands in no need of a borrowed glory. It 
is far better to seek after the truth than 
after the glory of Solomon. The apocry- 
phal book entitled The Wisdom of Solo- 

97 



Zbc IRew Hpologetic 

mon is worthy to have come from even a 
greater than Solomon ; but no one at this 
day believes that it was written by Sol- 
omon, although in chapter ix, verses 7 and 
8 this claim is evidently made. 

Let us now pass from Solomon to his 
father David and see how he fares at the 
hands of modern criticism. The Christian 
world is accustomed to speak of the 
" Psalms of David" as if the one hundred 
and fifty different songs of the Hebrew 
Psalter were all composed by that sweet 
singer of Israel, the son of Jesse. Accord- 
ing to ancient tradition, David was a gifted 
musician and singer. When he brought 
the ark to Jerusalem he instituted there a 
service of song (i Chron. xv). It is not 
improbable that some kind of collection of 
psalms was made in his day and under his 
direction. It may have included some of 
his own compositions. But our present 
Book of Psalms consists of five distinct 
books, or collections. Some of the psalms 
are ascribed to the sons of Korah ; a num- 
ber to Asaph ; others to Ethan the Ezra- 
hite, and Heman the Ezrahite ; one is 
ascribed to Moses ; two to Solomon ; and 
the vSeptuagint ascribes a number to Hag- 

98 



Zbc Xiterar^^Crftlcal Hpologp j 

1 

gai and Zechariah. Psalms xiv and liii are \ 

almost literally identical ; but they fall in i 

different collections, like the same hymn i 

repeated in different hymnals. Psalm ; 

cviii, which falls in the fifth book, is com- j 

posed of portions of Psalms Ivii and Ix, j 

which belong to the second book. These \ 

facts show beyond all question that the j 

Hebrew Psalter is neither the composition I 

nor the compilation of David. The book i 

contains songs of the exiles who sat down \ 

by the rivers of Babylon and wept when 
they remembered Zion (Psalm cxxxvii). 
It appears to be a collection of centuries of 
song in Israel, and the present arrange- j 

ment into five books was evidently made I 

after the Babylonian exile. ; 

And yet this whole collection has ever ; 

been associated with the name of David. i 

New Testament writers refer to the book i 

as if it were the work of David. In He- i 

brews iv, 7, the Holy Spirit is recognized ! 

as speaking in the Psalms, and the writer i 

cites a passage from the ninety-fifth psalm, l 

using the simple formula, '* saying in i 

David." But that psalm is not ascribed to j 

David in the Psalter. The best critics, j 

moreover, of all schools are now substan- \ 

99 ] 

I 

i 



XTbe Bew HpoIOGCttc 

tially agreed that no dependence is to be 
placed on the titles and superscriptions of 
the psalms. All such notes as ''For the 
chief musician," '* A prayer of David," *' A 
psalm of David," ''Michtam of David," 
*'Set to the Gittith," and '' Selah " are of 
the nature of musical notes and editorial 
additions, and have no more to do with the 
psalm itself than the names of tunes in 
modern hymn books have to do with the 
date and authorship of the hymns to which 
they are appended. 

In the light of these disclosures of criti- 
cism, let us now turn to the Book of Isaiah. 
For more than a hundred years the lead- 
ing biblical scholars of Germany have 
been insisting that the last twenty-seven 
chapters are not the work of the son of 
Amoz. The feeling aroused over this dis- 
cussion has been in some quarters almost 
extravagant, and even now we hear or read 
an occasional outburst of sweeping declara- 
tion that he who surrenders the Isaianic 
authorship of those chapters saps the foun- 
dation of the Christian faith ! 

But here, as in the other cases, the lover 
of the truth has only to ask, What are the 
facts ? The first twelve chapters of the 

100 



Hbe Xiterari^^Critlcal Hpology 

book are a connected series, and no one has 
doubted their Isaianic authorship. The next 
eleven chapters are a group of prophecies 
against heathen nations, and there is in- 
ternal evidence to show that some of them 
are older, and some of them are later, than 
the time of Isaiah. Chapters xxiv-xxvii 
are a sublime apocalypse ; and the following 
eight chapters are of a similar nature, but 
refer to different subjects, and, so far as in- 
ternal evidence goes, may or may not have 
been the work of Isaiah. Chapters xxxvi- 
xxxix are a fragment of the history of the 
times of Hezekiah, and identical in sub- 
stance with a portion of the Second Book of 
Kings (xviii, 13-xxi, 11). Chapter xxxviii 
contains a prayer which is entitled * ' The 
writing of Hezekiah king of Judah, when 
he had been sick, and was recovered of his 
sickness." Then follow the twenty-seven 
chapters, in which it is written : ' ' Zion is 
become a wilderness, Jerusalem a desola- 
tion. Our holy and beautiful house, where 
our fathers worshiped, is burned with fire, 
and all our pleasant things are laid waste.'* 
This desolation is spoken of as a well-known 
fact, not as something yet to be. And in 
the same manner Cyrus is mentioned as one 

101 



Ubc IRew Hpologetic 

who has already made his appearance, whom, 
Jehovah says, '' I have raised up from the 
north" (xli, 25), " whose right hand I have 
holden, to subdue nations before him " 
(xlv, i), and who is divinely called to say of 
Jerusalem, ''Thou shalt be built; and to 
the temple, Thy foundations shall be laid " 
(xliv, 28). Such statements and allusions, 
it is claimed, are unnatural when referring 
to events of the distant future, but have 
great force and naturalness when supposed 
to have been written near the close of the 
Babylonian exile, soon after Cyrus had ap- 
peared upon the stage of history. 

This is the verdict of criticism on the 
Book of Isaiah. Whether correct or incor- 
rect, it is based upon the same reasonable 
method of procedure which we have illus- 
trated in the Proverbs and the Psalms. Is 
it self-evident, or is it safe and wise to say, 
that a collection of prophecies of different 
authorship and dates, headed by the name 
of Isaiah, could not have been compiled as 
well as a collection of proverbs under the 
name of Solomon, or a collection of psalms 
under the name of David ? We refer the 
whole collection to Isaiah, as we refer 
the Psalms to David, and the Proverbs to 

102 



XTbe Xiterati^^dritical Hpolog^ 

Solomon. For purposes of reference or 
quotation nothing else is so convenient or 
practicable. But names and titles thus em- 
ployed in popular usage are no certain mark 
of date and authorship."^ Who can tell us 
to-day who wrote the Books of Joshua, 
Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and 
Job? If such a magnificent poem as the 
Book of Job is of unknown authorship, what 
folly to affirm that the unique collection of 
oracles in Isaiah xl-lxvi could not have 
gone into circulation without the author's 
name! 

It is not necessary to our purpose to pro- 

* Who is to determine for us assuredly whether the names 
"Samuel" and "Moses," as mentioned in Acts iii, 24, and 
Luke xxiv, 27, denote the individuals or the books so named? 
Compare the varying forms of reference to the same Old 
Testament passage in Matt, xxii, 31, Mark xii, 26, and Luke 
XX, 37. The citation of " Isaiah the prophet," after the man- 
ner of John i, 23, and xii, 38, is no necessary commitment 
of the writer to the effect that all the contents of the Book 
of Isaiah are from the son of Amoz. And when in John v, 
46, 47, Jesus speaks of the *' writings" of Moses, and says, 
" He wrote of me," his statements cannot without violence 
be construed into a declaration that " Moses wrote all the 
Pentateuch." No one has a right to assume that such refer- 
ences and citations commit Jesus or any New Testament 
writer to an authoritative dictum on the question of author- 
ship, unless at the same time it can be shown by a valid 
exegesis that it was intended to express a critical judgment on 
that question. 

103 



TLbc t\c\v Hpologetic 

ceed further with illustrations of the nature 
and methods of biblical criticism. The 
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the 
integrity of the Book of Zechariah, and the 
dates and authorship of other portions of 
the Old Testament and of the New are sub- 
jected to the same critical process. Some 
of these questions are, of course, more 
simple than others. In the discussion of 
books like Deuteronomy and Daniel and 
the Gospel of John questions of a more 
serious character arise, and facts most diffi- 
cult on any hypothesis to explain confront 
us. There is room for great differences of 
opinion ; and not infrequently we meet de- 
vout and learned men who adopt one view 
for a time, and upon further research change 
about to the opposite hypothesis. And this 
fact shows the need of greatest care and 
caution. 

The main conclusion we should all reach 
by this survey of the facts of criticism is, 
that the apologetics of the present day should 
recognize the great difference between ques- 
tions of literature and those of fundamental 
doctrine. Whether Paul or Apollos or Bar- 
nabas or Luke wrote the Epistle to the He- 
brews is a question of literary history, and 

104 



its determination one way or another will 
not affect the value of the epistle nor the 
essentials of the Christian faith. The great 
purpose of the Holy Scriptures is to make 
*' the man of God complete, furnished com- 
pletely unto every good work;" and we are 
admonished that ''every scripture, inspired 
of God, is also profitable for teaching, for 
reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
righteousness" (2 Tim. iii, 16). Its great 
purpose and value, then, are not for instruc- 
tion in geology or astronomy or physics, but 
for instruction in righteousness. 

But are there any errors in the Bible? 
The very question seems at first to startle. 
And how shall such a question be answered? 
Is it a matter that can be settled by a vote? 
Let me suggest three ways of dealing with 
this troublesome question : 

1 . There is the a priori^ dogmatic method 
of afiirming that there are and can be no 
errors in a volume inspired of God. For 
would it not be as impossible for God to in- 
spire an error as it would be for him to lie? 

2. It may be alleged, on the other hand, 
that there are errors in the Bible. In Josh. 
X, 40, it is written that Joshua drove out all 
the Canaanites and utterly destroyed * ' all 

106 



Zbc IRew Hpologetlc 

that breathed;" but in Judges we are told 
that after Joshua's death there were many 
of the Canaanites yet abiding in all parts 
of the country. In 2 Sam. xxiv, 24, it is 
said that David paid * ' fifty shekels of sil- 
ver" for Araunah's threshing floor; but in 
I Chron. xxi, 25, the price is put at "six 
hundred shekels of gold." In Acts vii, 16, 
Stephen makes an obvious blunder in saying 
that the sepulcher in which Jacob and the 
patriarchs were buried was at Shechem and 
was purchased by Abraham of "the sons 
of Hamor in Shechem;" but we read in 
Genesis that the tomb was not at Shechem, 
but at Hebron, and was purchased of "the 
sons of Heth." Such errors might be cited 
by the score.* 

3. There is a third and, I think, better 
way of dealing with this question of errors. 
It is to neither affirm nor deny, but to say 
to everyone sufficiently interested, "Come 
and see," or, " Go and look." It is a ques- 
tion of fact, and not to be entertained as a 

* Of course abundant efforts have been made at harmoni- 
zing such discrepancies. It has been said, for example, that 
David paid down at first fifty shekels of silver to bind the bar- 
gain, and subsequently paid six hundred shekels of gold when 
he took possession of the place ! But is such harmonizing 
truly assuring and satisfactory? 

106 



Ubc Xtterar^^crritical Hpoloai? 

matter of doctrine. But some zealous dis- 
putant exclaims, ' ' Suppose we do, as a 
matter of fact, find errors in the Scriptures ; 
what becomes of the doctrine of divine in- 
spiration?" Let us, however, reverse the 
question and say, * * Suppose you hold a doc- 
trine of inspiration that is clearly inconsist- 
ent with well-ascertained facts of the Scrip- 
tures ; what are you going to do with the 
facts?" 

Now hear this parable. A certain man 
had three sons, who fell to disputing one 
day over the question whether a well-known 
and fertile field of their father's contained 
any stones. The first said, ' ' No, there cannot 
be stones in a field that has been glorified 
as that field has been." But the second son 
said, *' There are stones there, for I have 
noticed them time and again." The first 
son refused for a while to look at a speci- 
men, but when he did look he pronounced it, 
not a stone, but a hard lump. At length 
the third son said, '* Brothers, let us all go 
out into the field and examine for ourselves. " 
Whereupon they went, and found various 
small stones scattered here and there around 
the field. But then they disagreed again 
as to what should be done with the stones. 

101 



Ube IRew Hpologetic 

The first son busied himself a long time in 
going about the field and trying to cover up 
all those troublesome stones with dirt. But 
the next plowshare that passed through the 
soil turned them up again to view. The 
other two succeeded in removing a number 
of the stones out of the field. But after a 
while one of them asked, ' ' Why should we 
be so much concerned about these scattered 
stones? They do no real harm to the field. 
The fruits and grains grow just as well in 
spite of them. Is it not the nature of this 
soil to have such stones in it? Why should 
we have ever set up the notion that this field 
must needs be without stones?" 

The apologies of the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries are almost monotonous 
with their threefold division of '' external," 
''internal," and "collateral" evidences. 
Many of the arguments have force, and the 
internal and collateral evidences, when 
clearly stated, have commanding value. 
But much that went under the head of ex- 
ternal evidence is obsolete to-day. No one 
now questions the main facts of historical 
Christianity. The accuracy of the biblical 
writers is often attested by ancient monu- 

los 



ZTbe Xtterat)g*Cttttcal Hpolo^^ 

ments and the results of scientific explora- 
tion in oriental countries. 

Some modern preachers run into grave 
mistakes in declaring that our sacred books 
are older than those of other nations. An- 
tiquity is no sure proof of the value or su- 
periority of a writing. Were it true that 
the Pentateuch and other portions of the 
Bible antedate all other literature of an- 
tiquity, that in itself would be no certain 
evidence of their real worth. The oldest 
books are not necessarily the best books. 
Such arguments, pressed to their logical re- 
sults, would prove the Old Testament to be 
of greater value than the New. There is 
also reason to believe that the most ancient 
writings of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, 
India, and China are as old as the very oldest 
portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, if not 
older. 

Some apologists have seemed to think that 
it is conclusive proof of the antiquity of the 
Book of Joshua to find that its statements 
are remarkably accurate and confirmed by 
the recent explorations in Palestine. Such 
evidence substantiates the accuracy of the 
narrative, but proves nothing as to the date 
of the book itself. Nearness to the events 

109 



Zbc l^ew Hpologetic 

recorded does not always insure the most 
accurate history. The best histories of an- 
cient Greece and Rome are not those writ- 
ten by the Greek and Roman authors mil- 
lenniums ago, but those written by German 
and English scholars of the nineteenth cen- 
tury.* 

Among the external evidences, it was 
formerly customary to appeal to the argu- 
ment from prophecy and its fulfillment. 
But many of the old apologies were based 
on erroneous interpretations of particular 
prophecies; and, when it w^as commonly 

* " The nervous eagerness with which some Christian men 
clutch at every confirmation of the accuracy of the Scriptures 
occurring among the results of modern historical and scien- 
tific inquir}' is unworthy of the calm and immovable faith 
in the spiritual substance of divine revelation which is neces- 
sary to the strength and joy of the Christian Church." — R. W. 
Dale, in TAe Expositor of January, 1S96, p. 3. It is always 
gratifying to obtain from the monuments any confirmations 
of the statements of Scripture ; but we should be sufficiently 
discriminating to know that what confirms a statement of 
historical fact may have no logical bearing on a question 
of literary criticism. The Moabite stone, perhaps the most 
valuable " find" of the century, is a monumental witness of 
" Mesha king of Moab " (comp. 2 Kings iii, 4), and men- 
tions Chemosh, and Jehovah, and " Orari king of Israel," 
and the names of several well-known places in and about 
Palestine ; but such coincidences confirm nothing in dispute, 
and have no bearing on the question of the composition, 
date^ and authorship of the Books of Kings. 

110 



Zbc Xtterar^^Crittcal Hpolog^ 

assumed that prophecy is * ' history written 
beforehand," all manner of extreme and 
absurd expositions of prophecy came into 
vogue, and men searched in the Book of 
Daniel and the Revelation of John to find 
predictions of the Pope of Rome, and of 
Mohammed, and of Napoleon Bonaparte. 
Many premillennialists and second advent- 
ists keep up this error in our day, and go 
about presuming to tell the approximate day 
and hour of the coming of Christ. The dis- 
use of the apologetic argument from proph- 
ecy is to a great extent a revolt from this 
extravagant claim for prophecy itself. It 
is not owing to disbelief in the supernatural, 
but is a revulsion from the unnatural and 
absurd. We recognize the supernatural in 
the Scriptures, as we do in Christ, but we 
reject the unnatural, the extravagant, the 
prodigious. Predictions of the fall of As- 
syria and Babylon and Tyre and Egypt 
were signally fulfilled, and the apologist 
may still point to them and say, ' ' Behold 
the finger of God." The Messianic prophe- 
cies of the Old Testament are like a golden 
chain running through the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures and training the hearts of the people 
of Israel to look for the blessed Christ of 

111 



Ubc t\c\v Hpologetic 

God. In them, perhaps more than in any 
other one feature, we are able to show how 
the Holy Scriptures are a great organism, 
evincing divine as well as human elements. 
A calm and faithful study of the human 
elements in the Bible will aid us in appre- 
hending the infinite Mind that speaks there- 
in, and in appreciating his *' eternal power 
and Godhead." 

The other main department of external 
evidences, in the older apologetics, was de- 
voted to miracles. The argument from mira- 
cles was the most conspicuous feature in the 
controversies with English deism ; but it 
must be confessed that it holds a much less 
prominent position now. Fifty years ago 
Trench, in his work on the Miracles of Our 
Lord, observed that the opponents of Eng- 
lish deism in the seventeenth century imag- 
ined they could best refute their enemies 
'* by reducing Christianity to a sort of ' re- 
vealed deism ' " (p. ^6^. In his recent book 
on Apologetics Professor A. B. Bruce has 
the following passage : * ' It must be con- 
fessed that miracles cannot be offered as 
evidences of Christianity now with the con- 
fidence with which they were employed for 
this purpose by the apologists of a past age. 

112 



Men do not now believe in Christ because 
of his miracles ; they rather believe in the 
miracles because they have first believed in 
Christ '• (p. 376). 

What I have to say about the apologetic 
value of miracles will come in more appro- 
priately in connection with the person of 
Christ. Here I only remark in passing that 
miracles, whether real or false, are wonder- 
ful works to us because we do not know 
how they were performed. They were not 
violations or suspensions of the laws of 
nature. They were in all cases wrought in 
perfect consistency with the divine order of 
the universe."* They need for their expla- 
nation only a sufficient knowledge of their 
cause. The miracles of Christ have their 
explanation in him. He was their sole suf- 

* ** A supernaturalism which tries to survive alongside of 
naturalism, dividing the kingdom with it, will soon have 
taken away from it 'even that which it seemeth to have.' 
The only hope of a successful issue is to carry the war into 
the enemy's quarters and to maintain what Carlyle called a 
'natural supernaturalism,' that is, the doctrine, not that 
thex'e are single miracles, but that the universe is miraculous, 
and that in order to conceive it truly we must think of it, not 
as a mechanical system occasionally broken in upon from 
above, but as an organism which implies a spiritual principle 
as its beginning and as its end." — Caird, The Evolution of 
Religion, pp. 319, 320. 

113 



XTbe IRew Hpologettc 

ficient cause. If we knew how they were 
performed they would cease to be mysteri- 
ous to us. There are profoundest mysteries 
in the person of Jesus Christ ; and he who 
fully believes in his divine-human personal- 
ity has no trouble about the miracles. If 
the infidel could only be brought to know 
"Jesus as he is " he would apprehend the 
all-sufficient cause and explanation of his 
wonderful works, for his unique personality 
is the greatest of all miracles. 

As evidences or proofs of spiritual reali- 
ties, therefore, miracles are superfluous to 
the Christian believer at the present day ; 
and as for those who will not believe Moses 
and the prophets, and Christ and the apos- 
tles, we have the highest authority for say- 
ing that they would not believe though one 
rose from the dead. 

As a general summing up now of the 
spirit, principles, and methods of the true 
literary -critical apology for the Bible, we 
submit the following propositions : 

I. First of all, we should have a definite 
and rational conception of what the Bible is. 
Half the attacks made against the Holy 
Scriptures have been provoked by an ex- 
treme claim of supernaturalism for the 

114 



TLbc %itcvavg^Cvitical Bpology 

book itself. From the extravagant declara- 
tions we sometimes hear, one might natu- 
rally imagine that the Bible had formerly- 
dropped suddenly out of heaven all written 
by the very finger of God and without de- 
fect of any kind. Our examination of the 
results of criticism has sufficiently shown 
that the true apology of the Bible will not 
allow such pretentious claims. 

2. The true apology will further take 
pains to show that the Bible is a very hu- 
man book. It was written by men of like 
passions with us, and bears all the marks 
of variety in styles of thought and expres- 
sion characteristic of different writers. This 
conspicuous human element admonishes us 
not to set up claims of infallibility for the 
whole book which the several writers do 
not make for themselves. 

3. The true apology will take pains to 
examine all critical questions of date and 
authorship and composition. If Moses did 
not write the Pentateuch as we now have it 
we shall never gain anything for the cause 
of truth by insisting that he did. ** Truth 
never was indebted to a lie;" and the most 
inane thing anyone can do in defense of the 
Bible is to lie about it. 

115 



TLbc flew apologetic 

4. Another thing not to be forgotten is 
the fact that there were many revelations 
of God's truth given to men before any part 
of the Bible was written. In like manner, 
the teaching of Christ and the preaching of 
the apostles founded Christianity in the 
world before there was anv New Testament. 
The essentials of the Gospel are not de- 
pendent upon the successful defense of the 
traditional authorship of a written document. 
I would not allow even the question of the 
authorship of the fourth gospel to hold an 
essential place in general apologetics. The 
fundamental truths of Christianity can be 
shown from the three synoptic gospels and 
the four unquestioned epistles of Paul, our 
enemies themselves being judges. 

5 . Finally, the great positive apolog}^ for 
the Holy Scriptures is manifold. It may 
be stated in four significant and suggestive 
propositions : (i) These Scriptures are a rec- 
ord of progressive, divine revelation, from 
the most ancient times down to the end of 
the apostolic era; (2) this revelation incul- 
cates all the great religious truths which 
are anywhere recognized among men as 
helpful to piety and virtue ; (3) these Scrip- 
tures are remarkably unique among all the 

116 



Uhc Xlterar^^Crtttcal Hpoloai? 

sacred books of the world, and free from 
the absurdities which abound in most of 
the so-called Bibles of the nations ; (4) they 
contain all those holy and helpful doctrines 
and consolations which answer to the deep- 
est yearnings of the human heart and ever 
tend to elevate and bless mankind. 

The apology that substantiates these 
claims has no need to resort to any ques- 
tionable methods and doubtful disputations. 

117 



IV 



®l)c '!3lpcilogt! of €omparotioc 
Bcligton 



TLbc Hpoloa^ ot Comparative IReltaton 



IV 



The Apology of Comparative Religfion 

One of the most fascinating departments 
of modern research is the study of compar- 
ative theology. It is now generally con- 
ceded that man is a religious being and will 
worship God or something in the place of 
God. The religious feeling may show itself 
in the low forms of fetichism, in groveling 
superstition, in sorcery and witchcraft, in 
obscene rites and licentious and barbarous 
abominations. The strange and irrational 
extremes to which men will go in matters 
of religion is one of the marvels of the 
human mind. 

But more commanding in modern thought 
are the great religions like Brahmanism and 
Buddhism, which number their adherents 
by the millions and are pointed out as 
mighty rivals of Christianity. The Chris- 
tian apologist is called upon to explain how 
it is that two thirds of the human race are 
either entire strangers to the Christian faith 
or, having some knowledge of it, reject it 
and prefer their own systems of belief. The 

121 



XTbe IRew Hpolooetic 

modern Parsee, the Brahman, the Buddhist, 
the Moslem, and the disciple of Confucius 
deliberately reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ 
and insist that their own religions are to be 
preferred. 

It will not do in apologetics for us to 
start out with the assumption that Chris- 
tianity is the only true religion, and that all 
other religions are false. Nor can we any 
longer make profitable use of the old dis- 
tinction of natural and revealed religion. 
Ritschl is said to have once greatly startled 
an American student by declaring, ' * There 
is no such thing as natural theology." But 
is not the statement substantially correct? 
Paul himself teaches that the invisible 
things of God, as perceived in creation, are 
a revelation of his eternal power and divinity 
to the Gentile world (Rom. i, 20). So all 
religion is revealed.* 

* " The notion of revelation, nay, rightly understood, of a 
supernatural revelation, is presupposed in the notion of re- 
ligion, or forms the inseparable correlate of it. There can 
be no elevation of the finite spirit into communion with the 
Infinite which does not imply divine acts or a divine process 
of self-revelation. Neither thought nor the aspirations of the 
religious nature can be satisfied with the rationalistic notion of 
a merely subjective religion of opinions and beliefs, wrought 
out by the purely spontaneous activity of the human mind, 
and implying nothing more on the divine side than is involved 

122 



Ube Hpoloas of Comparative *Keltaion 

We sometimes speak of dead religions 
and living religions. This fact alone should 
suggest that religion itself has been a 
growth in the history of humanity. As the 
great nations of to-day are the outgrowth 
and survival of nations that perished long 
ago, so the living religions have inherited 
much from those which no longer exist. 

We may classify religions, according to 
the ruling idea of God which they repre- 
sent, as pantheistic, polytheistic, dualistic, 
and monotheistic. But this is hardly suf- 
ficient to comprehend all the lower forms of 
religious belief and practice to be found 
among men. Nor is Max Miiller's classifi- 
cation any more satisfactory, which dis- 
tributes religions, according to families of 
languages, into Turanian, Semitic, and 
Aryan ; for the most diverse forms of 
religion are found under any one of these 
divisions, and Christianity, which was of 

in the original creation of man's rational nature. A God who 
does not reveal himself ceases to be God ; and religious feel- 
ing, craving after a living relation to its object, refuses to be 
satisfied with a mere initial or potential revelation of the 
mind and will of God — with a God who speaks once for all, 
and then through the whole course of history ceases to reveal 
himself." — Caird, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Re- 
iigion, p. 60. New York, 1894. 

123 



TLbc laew Hpologettc 

Semitic origin, has made most of its con- 
verts among the Aryan races. Religion 
itself is independent both of language and 
of nationality. But we may divide all 
religions into the three classes of tribal, 
national, and universal religions. We have 
all these classes represented at the present 
time in the totemism of Alaska, the Con- 
fucianism of China, and the Christianity of 
all lands. But we may also speak of 
religions as individual and national — the 
former, like Buddhism and Islam, tracing 
their origin to an individual founder; the 
latter, like the religions of ancient Egypt 
and Babylon, being the slow growth of the 
collective traditions and worship of an entire 
nation, without recognition of an individual 
founder. There is also the division into 
nature religions and ethical religions, the 
one including all the lower cults of animism 
and polytheism ; the other distinguished as 
lawgiving religions (nomothetic or nomistic) 
or book religions, having sacred scriptures 
of authority. This last named would include 
Confucianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Zo- 
roastrianism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, 
and Christianity. 

This glance at the many religions of the 

124 



XTbe Hpoloo^ of Comparative IRelt^ion 

world and the numerous ways they may be 
classified must impress every thoughtful 
mind with the conviction that the nature of 
man demands some kind of religion. We 
ought also to observe that the missionary 
religions of the world are individual reli- 
gions. Buddhism, Mohammedanism, and 
Christianity have propagated themselves 
beyond the lands where they had their 
origin, and they are also lawgiving or book 
religions. These facts suggest that the 
highest and most powerful religions origi- 
nate in special revelations of God to an 
individual, who thereby becomes the incar- 
nation of a divine ideal. To some extent 
every such ideal is God manifest in flesh. 
In the light of this proposition, the compar- 
ative-religious apology of Christianity re- 
solves itself into an answer to the question. 
Which of the great religions reveals to man 
the highest, holiest, best ideal of God? 

But before we can intelligently discuss 
that question we must take into considera- 
tion a number of facts which continually 
meet us in such inquiries. There are at 
least four different views of religion : ( i ) 
There are some people now, as there always 
have been a few, who regard all religion as 

125 



Zbc 1Rew HpolOQCttc 

a bane. With these we need not here 

waste any time. (2) There is another class 
who argue that all religions are in them- 
selves of equal worth, but Confucianism is 
best for the Chinese, Islam is best for the 
Arabian, and Christianity is best for the 
European and American. (3) Then there 
is the very opposite opinion, which the old- 
time apologist assumed, that Christianity 
is the only religion which is direct from 
God and without error, and that all others 
are essentially false and hateful in the 
sight of God. But this view is obviously 
inconsistent with the New Testament doc- 
trine that God has not left himself without 
witness among the nations, but has deter- 
mined their appointed seasons and the 
bounds of their habitations, gifting even the 
heathen poets to utter great truths like the 
fatherhood of God, and writing this law in 
their hearts so that their consciences accuse 
or excuse them, according to their deeds. 
(4) There is a fourth opinion, adopted by 
the best apologetics of to-day, according to 
which there are many great truths in the 
non-Christian religions, which truths are as 
certainly from God as are the same truths 
when accepted by Moses or Isaiah or Paul. 

.126 



TLbc HpolOQ^ of Compatattve IReltgton 

Accepting this last view as correct, it be- 
' hooves us further to observe that in all 
religions we may perceive at least four ele- 
ments: (i) A sense or concept of depend- 
ence on some higher Power ; (2) some kind 
of reverence and worship of that Power ; (3) 
a moral sense which involves the idea of re- 
wards and punishments ; and (4) some idea 
of immortality and a future life. These, 
then, may be recognized as essential ele- 
ments to be found, in some form, in all the 
religions of the world. 

Many have undertaken to give a compre- 
hensive definition of religion. I here select 
one from Kellogg's lectures on T/ie Genesis and 
Growth of Religion which seems to me quite 
satisfactory : ' ' Religion essentially consists 
in man's apprehension of his relation to an 
invisible Power, or powers, able to influence 
his destiny, to which he is necessarily sub- 
ject, together with the feelings, desires, 
and actions which this apprehension calls 
forth." This definition is "applicable to 
every form of religion, from the lowest 
superstition to the highest type of Chris- 
tianity," and has the merit of representing 
religion itself as ** an experience which has 
to do equally with every part of our nature." 

127 



TLbc IFlew Hpologetic 

A clear definition of religion goes far to- 
ward answering the question of its origin. 
It shows it to be an essential experience of 
human nature. Its universality and per- 
sistence prove its necessity to man. 

But it would be an error to suppose that 
we can best define religion by eliminating 
from all its known forms those elements 
which are common to all the religions of 
the world, and then assume that such com- 
mon elements are the essentials of the high- 
est and best religion. On such a principle, 
as Caird has shown, that which is highest 
and most valuable in the highest religion 
would be kept out of sight, and attention 
directed only to such things as the lowest 
forms of religion may exhibit. * * There 
may be in religion ideas or doctrines which 
are essentially and absolutely true, whilst 
yet, in the actual experience of the world, 
the knowledge of them may have come at a 
late period of history, and even then only 
to a limited section of the race. . . , To 
leave out of view the bud or flower or fruit, 
or to consider only what is common to these 
with the seed and stalk or stem, would 
not help us to the essential idea of the 
plant. If, therefore, in the religious his- 

128 



Zbc Hpologp of (Tomparattpc IRellgion 

tory of the world we can discover any indi- 
cations of a progressive development, it is 
not by leaving out of view what is peculiar 
to Christianity — those ideas or doctrines 
which constitute its special glory and ex- 
cellence — and taking account only of that 
which it has in common with the earliest 
and rudest nature-worship, that the essen- 
tial idea of religion is to be extricated."* 

The modern apology cannot well avoid 
the question of the origin of religion. We 
know much of the origin of Mohammed- 
anism, for it is only twelve hundred years 
old. Christianity is less than two thou- 
sand years old, but claims that it is the pre- 
dicted outgrowth and fulfillment of the re- 
ligion of Israel. We know something of 
the origin of Buddhism, but it goes back 
six hundred years before our era and was a 
revolt from the ancient Brahmanism of 
India. The origin of Brahmanism is lost in 
the mists of antiquity ; and so also is Con- 
fucianism, which is, perhaps, two thousand 
years older than Confucius. Who can tell 
us of the origin of the religions of ancient 
Egypt and Assyria and Babylon and Persia 

* See further in Caird, An Introduction to the Philosophy 
of Religion, pp. 77, fif. 

129 



TLbc 1fic\v HpolOGCttc 

and Japan? And what shall be said of 
those prehistoric cults of whose existence 
we have only incidental knowledge, and 
which passed away long before any of the 
great religions now existing acquired their 
present form? 

It has sometimes been said that a per- 
fect religion was made known to Adam in 
the garden of Eden, but became corrupted 
in the successive generations of mankind, 
save that here and there a great saint, like 
Abraham and Melchizedek and Job, re- 
tained and transmitted the true knowledge 
of God. But is this a fact so clearly de- 
monstrable that a Christian apologist can 
safely accept it as an essential doctrine of 
his system ? Look at the testimony, as far 
as it is available. We readily trace the 
Jewish people back to Abraham, but find 
that his ancestors dwelt in old time among 
the Chaldeans and served other gods. 
Abraham lived about two thousand years 
before Christ ; but what do we know of the 
history of religion during the two or more 
thousand years before his day? The bibli- 
cal narrative of those far-away centuries is 
very fragmentary and of doubtful interpre- 
tation. There were between Abraham and 

130 



Ube apology of Comparative IRellGton 

Adam only three persons who seem to 
have been on favorable terms with God; 
and they were Abel, whom Cain soon put 
out of the way, and Enoch, whom God 
took, and Noah, the only righteous man of 
his time. After the flood God made a cov- 
enant with Noah; but both the patriarch 
and his sons appear in a worse light there- 
after. Several centuries elapsed before the 
call of Abraham, and there is not a shred 
of evidence to show that the true original 
religion was transmitted to him from any 
of his ancestors ; but the contrary is matter 
of record. It was not said to him, '' Get 
thee out of thy country, and away from thy 
kindred and father's house, and I will 
restore unto thee that true religion which 
thy older ancestors once possessed, but 
which thy later fathers have lost." 

In view of this absence of knowledge it 
is not a prudent or sagacious thing for the 
Christian apologist to assume that the true 
religion is a matter of ancient and primeval 
revelation, which has since been transmitted 
by means of tradition from one generation 
to another. 

A further fact important for us to recog- 
nize is that no one of all the great religions 

131 



Ube Mew U^ologctic 

of the world is free from admixtures of 
human imperfection. The Christian will be 
very ready to concede this so far as all other 
religions are concerned, but will hesitate at 
the idea that his own system has any imper- 
fections. It is affirmed by some that Jesus 
Christ gave a revelation of God so complete 
that nothing can now be added to it or taken 
away from it. That perfect revelation is 
supposed to be embodied in the New Testa- 
ment. But the apologist who makes this 
claim will be challenged in two ways : 

I . First, it will be said that the different 
books of the New Testament are not a per- 
fect report of all that Jesus said and did. 
The discrepancies of the gospels make it 
impossible to determine on many points just 
Avhat the words of Jesus were. If they all 
disagree in reporting what he said at the 
last supper and what was written in the title 
on the cross, what assurance have we that 
in any other saying his exact language has 
been preserv^ed? The language, style, and 
doctrines of John and Paul and James are 
so different that we must acknowledge a 
considerable admixture of their own individ- 
ual ways of conceiving and stating the truth 
of Christ. 

132 



TLbc Bpolog^ of Comparative IReltglon 

2. But, supposing we satisfy ourselves 
that the perfect revelation of God in Christ 
has been faithfully recorded in the New- 
Testament, where is there an infallible in- 
terpreter of these records? Where is the 
individual or the Church in all Christendom 
that speaks to-day with acknowledged au- 
thority on all the essentials of Christianity? 
The Christian apologist must face the fact 
that the Greek Church, the Roman Catholic 
Church, the State Churches of England and 
of continental Europe, all the other Protes- 
tant Churches, and all the heretical sects 
which now exist or ever have existed under 
the Christian name must all be taken into 
account when he meets a Buddhist and un- 
dertakes to show that Christianity is the 
perfect and absolute religion. 

The Christian apologist must, I think, ac- 
knowledge that his own religion, as well as 
all other religions, is not without its admix- 
ture of error and defect. A religion is 
judged by all the facts which it represents ; 
and the sum total of Christianity includes, 
not only the New Testament, but all the 
Churches and creeds and confessions and 
worships of the Christian centuries. When, 
therefore, you ask after the essentials of the 

133 



Zbc IRew Hpologettc 

Christian religion you will have to set aside 
many of the doctrines and practices of the 
modern Church. And, furthermore, you 
will find that even the New Testament con- 
tains many things which are not essential 
elements of pure Christianity. You could 
not assemble an ecumenical council of 
Christendom to-day, or of any considerable 
portion of the Church universal, and get 
them to affirm, as did the council at Jerusa- 
lem in the days of Peter, James, and Paul, 
that three out of four '' necessary things " 
for all the Churches to observe are absti- 
nence from eating blood and things stran- 
gled and meats that had been slain for sac- 
rifice.* 

Since, therefore, we are obliged to dis- 
criminate and reason in order to determine 
what are the essential elements of Chris- 
tianity, we ought in all fairness to treat 
other religions in the same way. We would 
deem it most unfair for a Mohammedan to 
visit a Roman Catholic province and ob- 
serve the adoration of the Virgin and im- 
ages of saints in the cathedrals, the con- 
fessional, the mass, the candles, the incense, 
and the processions of Romish worship, and 

*Acts XV, 28, 29. 
134 



Uhc Hpolog^ of Comparative IReltgton 

thereupon report that these were the essen- 
tials of Christianity. Is it not equally un- 
fair for a Christian to go to India and, after 
witnessing the unclean and degrading forms 
of Hindu worship and self-torture, conclude 
that those practices are the essential ele- 
ments of original Brahmanism? It is said 
that when the Roman Catholic missionaries 
first encountered Buddhism in China they 
were astonished to find that it, also, had 
monks, hermits, vows of celibacy, tonsure, 
rosaries, holy water, masses for the dead, 
prayers in an unknown tongue, kneeling 
before images in worship, and even a pope 
in the Grand Lama of Thibet. Said one of 
the Portuguese missionaries, ** There is not 
a piece of dress, not a sacerdotal function, 
not a ceremony of the court of Rome which 
the devil has not copied in this country." 
But all these accessories of modern Bud- 
dhism may be as far from the fundamental 
teachings of Buddha as are the peculiarities 
of Romanism from the teachings of our Lord. 
All religions, therefore, are entitled in a 
fair comparison to be judged according to 
what is highest and best in them, rather 
than by what is lowest and what may be 
only incidental and accessory. The faithful 

135 



Ubc IRew Hpologetlc 

student of religions, seeking to know the 
real truth, will not dwell on the supersti- 
tions and absurdities which have become 
associated with a religion, and treat them 
as essentials when there is any reason to 
suppose that such superstitions are, as in 
the case of Romish Christianity, not essen- 
tials, but accretions of a later time. 

We may now indicate the true method of 
apologetics in dealing with this subject. 
Having made a fair analysis of the essen- 
tial elements of the religions that are sup- 
posed to rival Christianity, the great argu- 
ment must be to show that the religion of 
Jesus Christ contains all these doctrines that 
are of value and presents them in more per- 
fect and commanding form than any other 
faith, and also supplements them with most 
important truths unknown to other religions, 
or at best so dimly revealed that Christianity 
is needed as a fulfillment and completion. 
If such superior claims of the Gospel can be 
clearly proven it will hardly be necessary to 
go further and point out the notable defects 
and failure of other religions to meet all the 
religious wants of man. And yet fidelity to 
the truth may require us to call attention to 
the defects of the rival systems. 

136 



Zbc Hpolo^i^ ot Comparative IReltgton 

I will now endeavor to illustrate these 
principles briefly by an application of them 
to Confucianism and Buddhism, two of the 
most influential systems of Asia. 

Confucianism is preeminently the religion 
of the Chinese Empire. Confucius, how- 
ever, was not its founder, and we should do 
him the justice to remember his own claim 
to be only a teacher and transmitter of the 
ancient doctrines of his people. It is said 
of him that '' he would not affirm nor relate 
anything for which he could not adduce 
some document of acknowledged authority." 
The sacred books of China cite the words 
and example of kings that lived before the 
times of Abraham. 

Among the chief facts of Confucianism 
which require respectful study I will men- 
tion four: (i) The worship of Heaven or 
Shang-ti ; (2) the worship of ancestors ; (3) 
the worship of spirits ; and (4) the moral 
code. 

In the ancient books known as the S/iu 
and the S/iik we frequently meet the words 
Tu'7z, Heaven, Ti, Ruler, and Shang-ti, su- 
preme Ruler, or the great Power on high. 
Dr. Legge maintains that the oldest Chi- 
nese conception of God is to be learned 

137 



Ube IRew HpoloGcttc 

from the written characters of the language, 
and that those ideagrams which represent 
heaven, or the supreme Power, point to an 
original monotheism. He says, also, that 
the character pronounced '' Shih'' is the 
symbol for manifestation or revelation, and 
shows that the Chinese fathers conceived 
the idea of communication between heaven 
and men."^ All this appears to be implied 
in the imperial worship. No one but the 
emperor can offer the great sacrifices. He 
then stands forth in his royal dignity and, 
like a great high priest, performs for him- 
self and his dynasty and all the millions of 
his subjects the various acts of worship. 

The following are specimens of prayers 
offered on such occasions : ' * To thee, O 
mysterious Worker, I look up in thought. 
How imperial is the expansive arch where 
thou dwellest. . . . My heart is but as that 
of an insect. Yet have I received thy fa- 
voring decree appointing me to the govern- 
ment of the empire. I deeply cherish a 
sense of my ignorance and blindness, and 
am afraid lest I prove unworthy of thy great 
favors. Therefore will I observe all the 

* The Religions of China, by James Legge, pp. 10-13. 
New York, 1881. 

138 



Zbc Hpoloa^ of Comparative IRelt^lon 

rules and statutes. . . . Far distant here, I 
look up to thy heavenly palace. Come in 
thy precious chariot to the altar. Thy serv- 
ant bows his head to the earth, reverently 
expecting thine abundant grace." ^ Who 
will presume to argue, when he reads such 
sentiments, that worship and prayers of 
this sort were invented without any inspi- 
ration from the Almighty? 

In the worship of Shang-ti the emperor, 
as the representative of all his people, stands 
alone ; but the worship of their ancestors is 
the privilege and practice of all the Chinese 
people. The doctrine of filial piety is funda- 
mental to the Confucian system. In one of 
the classic books it is written : ** Filial piety 
is the root of all virtue, and the stem out of 
which grows all moral teaching. . . . The 
services of love and reverence to parents 
when alive, and those of grief and sorrow 
to them when dead, completely discharge 
the fundamental duty of living men. The 
righteous claims of life and death are all 
satisfied, and the filial son's service to his 
parents is completed." Confucius is said to 

* Quoted from Legge's Notions of the Chinese Concerning 
God and Spirits, in Culbertson's Darkness in the Flowery 
Land^ p. 36. New York, 1857. 

139 



Ubc IRew Hpolo^etic 

have completed his duty of filial devotion 

by remaining three years in strict seclusion 

near his mother's grave. 

" Three years the infant in its parent's arms ; 
Three years the mourner at his parent's grave." 

The imperial worship includes, also, the 
worship of ancestors, and the following is 
a part of a royal prayer : * ' I think of you, 
my sovereign ancestors, whose glorious 
souls are in heaven. As from an overflow- 
ing fountain run the happy streams, such is 
the connection between you and your de- 
scendants. I, a distant descendant, look 
back and offer this bright sacrifice to you, 
the honored ones from age to age.'"^ 

In the imperial worship there is also a 
recognition of multitudes of spirits; and 
tribute is paid, not only to departed sages 
and heroes, but to spirits of the sky and 
stars, the clouds, rain, wind, and thunder; 
to spirits of the mountains and the rivers and 
the trees, and of the seasons of the year. 
These spirits are not called gods, but they 
are conceived as ministers of Heaven. The 
spirits of renowned ancestors, heroes, eini- 
nent sages, and virtuous women seem to 
have gone through a sort of apotheosis and 

* Legge, Tke Religions of China, p. 82. 
140 



Ube HpoloGS ot Comparative IReltgion 

become presiding intelligences or tutelary 
spirits, whose powers of intercession may 
be of great value to those on earth. 

The emphasis which Confucianism puts 
on moral law is worthy of special attention. 
It inculcates domestic virtue, and bids men 
guard their motives, their thoughts, their 
words, and their actions. It extols wisdom 
and filial piety, and builds the whole admin- 
istration of civil government thereon. It 
enjoins truthfulness, sincerity, diligence, 
temperance, and politeness. While there 
is in China, as in all other countries, no lack 
of vice and crime, the great body of the 
people appear to be industrious, contented, 
and happy. They call their country ' * the 
flowery land," "the central land," ''the 
middle kingdom," and they speak of them- 
selves as '' the black-haired people." 

One may say, after the manner of the old 
Hebrew prophets, that China is a land 
greatly favored of God. Has not her re- 
markable reverence for parents insured to 
her the blessing of ' * the first command- 
ment with promise? " Surely her days have 
been long upon the land which God has 
given her. Confucius was nearly contem- 
porary with Sakya-muni in India, with 

10 ~^ 



"Hbe IRew HpoloGcttc 

Cyrus in Persia, with Zerubbabel in Jerusa- 
lem, and Pythagoras in Greece. And yet, 
centuries before Confucius, twenty-three 
hundred years before our Christ, and long 
before Abraham migrated from Ur of the 
Chaldees, China was governed by the good 
king Yao, of whom it is written : ** He was 
reverential, intelligent, accomplished, and 
thoughtful — naturally so, and without effort. 
The bright influence of these qualities was 
felt throughout the four quarters of the 
land. He united and harmonized the myr- 
iad states, and so the black-haired people 
were transformed. The result was univer- 
sal concord." 

We have now briefly noted some of the 
chief excellences of Confucianism. Much 
more might, of course, be said. Probably 
the greatest saying attributed to Confucius 
himself is his enunciation of the golden 
rule. When once asked if he could express 
in one word an abiding and comprehensive 
rule of conduct he replied: *'Is not * reci- 
procity * such a word ? What you do not 
want done to yourself do not do to others." 
This negative precept has been extolled as 
antedating Jesus Christ by at least four 
hundred years. 

142 



TLbc Hpolog^ ot Comparative IReltgion 

What now has the Christian apologist to 
say to such facts and claims as these? If 
he pursue the method of Paul he will, first 
of all, give full credit for whatever good 
things the rival religion can fairly claim. 
He should, furthermore, acknowledge that 
all those good things are of God. * * Every 
good gift and every perfect boon is from 
above, coming down from the Father of 
lights," whether it be manifest in Chris- 
tianity, in Judaism, in Buddhism, or in Con- 
fucianism. God has been ever working 
among the nations. May it not be true that 
all the ancient systems of thought and wor- 
ship have been a preparation of the world for 
Christ? It is almost a commonplace of the 
modern philosophy of history to af&rm that 
Greek culture and Roman law prepared the 
world for the coming of Christ, as truly, if 
not to the same extent, as did Moses and 
the prophets. Why, then, should we be 
slow of heart to believe that in far Cathay 
the worship of Shang-ti, the reverence of 
ancestors, and the high regard for ethical 
excellence may also be a divinely ordered 
preparation of the Chinese nation for a full- 
ness of times when the Light of heaven 
shall fill that Middle Kingdom with a higher 

143 



TLbc Bew Hpologettc 

faith ? ^ We have no word of the Lord to 
justify us in uttering divine judgment on 
the countless millions of those ' ' black- 
haired people " and assigning them to eter- 
nal perdition because they have no knowl- 
edge of Moses and the prophets and the 
Christ. We have more reason to say that 
this ancient system, older than Moses and 
the prophets, older than Melchizedek and 
Abraham, numbering its votaries by hun- 
dreds of millions when Judaism could only 
speak of millions, has by its twilight stars 

* ' ' We do not pay any real homage to the supernatural by 
disconnecting it as much as possible from the natural and 
human ; we render only a spurious tribute to the divine Author 
of revelation by supposing that all that through the long lapse 
of ages men had believed concerning him was error and false- 
hood, and that the religious ideas of the past must be wiped 
clean out of the human spirit in order that the new message 
from heaven might be written upon it by the finger of God. 
. . . The Christian apologist in our day usually finds one of 
his strongest arguments for the divine origin of Christianity in 
the fact that it meets the unconscious longings of heathendom. 
It is now one of the recognized lines of apologetic thought to 
trace anticipations of Christian doctrine in the pre-Christian 
religions, and to point out the guesses at truth, the fore- 
shadowings of moral and spiritual ideas, which, under many 
errors and superstitions, can be detected in the sacred books 
of India and China and Persia, and, in general, in the 
religious notions, rites, observances, institutions of the 
heathen world." — Caird, An Introduction to the Philosophy 
of Religion, pp. 333, 334. 

144 



TLbc HpoloGP ot Comparative IReltaion 

turned myriads to a moral life and to 
thoughts of a spiritual world. How many- 
may have found, in such worship as they 
knew and loved, a light that led them out of 
their darkness into the glory of celestial 
sunrise? 

I venture to think that the missionary of 
Christ who takes pains to find out all the 
good things he can among those whom he 
seeks to convert from their ancestral wor- 
ship, and gives them credit for the same, 
will find readier access to their hearts than 
is possible by an attitude of direct hostility. 
Having first secured attention to whatever 
truths are held in common, he will have 
prepared the way for advancing the superior 
claims of his own system. This was Paul's 
method when he addressed the men of 
Athens. And the modern apostles of Christ 
to China should, as often as practicable, 
take their texts from the altars of the Con- 
fucian faith and utilize whatever truth they 
may suggest as a means of setting forth the 
Saviour who is ignorantly worshiped. He 
can present a clearer and more affecting 
view of the Power above the heavens than 
attaches to the Chinese concept of Shang-ti ; 
for he can reveal him as " our Father who 

145 



XTbe IRew Hpologettc 

is in heaven." He can proclaim a venera- 
tion for parents as deep and true as theirs, 
and at the same time free from the extrava- 
gance and superstition that attach to their 
ancestral worship. He can tell them of 
angels and principalities and powers supe- 
rior to their pantheistic notions of the 
spirits of the wind and the clouds and the 
rivers. He can show them an ethical code 
even superior to that which is their national 
boast and glory. The old Chinese philoso- 
pher Lao-tsze, his older contemporary, sur- 
passed Confucius's golden rule by the 
higher maxim, '* Return good for evil." 
Confucius is said to have been puzzled over 
Lao-tsze's doctrine, and finally rejected it, 
saying, " If you return good for evil, what 
will you return for good?" ''Nay," he 
added, ''recompense injury with justice, 
and return good for good." 

The Christian apologist, recognizing that 
Confucianism is in some measure, like 
Judaism, a preparation for something bet- 
ter, may imitate the manner of Christ and 
say : ' ' Ye men of China, it was said by 
your ancient teacher, ' Let the emperor wor- 
ship Shang-ti for his people;' but I say 
unto you, * Let every man pray for himself 

146 



Ubc Hpologp ot (Iomparatix>e IRellgtoii 

directly to the God of heaven.' It was said 
by your men of old time, ' Be like your 
fathers, imitate their ways, and perpetuate 
the old customs amid all the changes of the 
world;' but I say unto you, * Become better 
than your fathers, seek new light and power 
from your heavenly Father, and improve 
the individual, the family, and the State by 
the acquisition of all useful knowledge.' " 

The Christian apologist will also, at the 
proper time, show the defects of Confucian- 
ism on many things which are of the ut- 
most importance to religion. He will allege 
its vague and unsatisfactory concept of God 
as compared with the God and Father of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. He will expose the 
error of excluding the masses of the people 
from the worship of the God of heaven and 
restricting such worship to the imperial 
household. Confucianism, moreover, has 
no clear doctrine of a future life and of re- 
wards and punishments. There is no such 
thing as sin, in the sense of damning guilt, 
to the thought of a Chinaman ; and his word 
for sin is identical with that which denotes a 
breach of etiquette. To his mind a bad life 
is simply a bad policy, and is likely to result 
in untimely death. Finally, Confucianism 

147 



Ube IFlew Hpologetic j 

knows no doctrine of redemption. It has | 
no conception of atonement for sin, no i 
idea of the pardon and regeneration of the ; 
guilty soul or of sanctification and prog- 
ress in spiritual life. It has no song of sal- 
vation, no blissful hope of resurrection from j 
the dead. In all these doctrines, and others j 
that might be mentioned, we may trium- I 
phantly demonstrate the superiority of the i 
religion of the Gospel of Christ. \ 
In the same general way we may illus- ] 
trate this apologetical method with Bud- : 
dhism, that other great rival of Christianity, 
which numbers its adherents by the hun- ; 
dreds of millions. Modern Buddhism is \ 
the growth of nearly twenty-five hundred \ 
years ; and it has been modified and adapted ' 
to meet the conditions of different coun- j 
tries into which it has been introduced. It 1 
would be easy to show that, in spite of its i 
boasted revolt from Brahmanism, Bud- ! 
dhism has never escaped the damaging 
leaven of fatalism, transmigration, panthe- I 
ism, and pessimism which permeates so | 
much of Indian thought. But our plan is j 
to inquire for the very best things that i 
can be said for Buddhism. What are the 
excellences of this wonderful system, that 

148 i 

] 



Ube Hpolog^ of (Iomparati\ie IReltaton 

anyone should presume to hold them up 
in rivalry of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? 

We pass over the questions of philosoph- 
ical Buddhism and doubtful traditions of the 
life of Gautama, and examine the moral 
code. The great commandments of Bud- 
dhism are often put in the form of a dec- 
alogue, and are in vsubstance as follows: 
I. Thou shalt not kill. 2. Thou shalt not 
steal. 3. Thou shalt not lie. 4. Thou shalt 
not become intoxicated. 5. Thou shalt not 
commit adultery. 6. Thou shalt not eat 
solid food after noon. 7. Thou shalt not 
visit scenes of amusement. 8. Thou shalt 
not use ornaments or perfumes. 9. Thou 
shalt not use luxurious beds. 10. Thou 
shalt not accept gold or silver. The first 
five of these commandments are fundamen- 
tal and obligatory ; but the others are ac- 
knowledged to be of less importance. So 
far as they correspond with the Hebrew 
decalogue, Judaism, Christianity, and Bud- 
dhism are one. But w^e must bear in mind 
that laws against murder, theft, lying, and 
adultery are older than any of these re- 
ligions and are written in the hearts of all 
men. 

We may safely challenge comparison of 

149 



XTbe IRcw Hpologetic 

these ten commandments, when taken as a 
whole and set in their best form, with the 
decalogue of Judaism and Christianity. 
Such comparison reveals the notable de- 
ficiency of Buddhism. It has no doctrine 
of God, no Sabbath rest, no law of honor- 
ing father and mother. For apologetic pur- 
poses these defects of Buddhism are alone 
sufficient to nullify its claim of superiority. 
Original Buddhism knows no God, and this 
one fundamental defect vitiates its value as 
a system of religion. A bishop of Calcutta, 
once observing a devout Buddhist praying 
in a temple, asked him for what he was 
praying. ** For nothing," he replied. ''But 
to whom have you been praying? " asked 
the bishop. ''To nobody," he replied. 
Significant illustration of the purposeless 
character of Buddhist praying — praying for 
nothing, to nobody ! What is the basis of 
morality and what the nature of prayer 
apart from belief in a personal God? In its 
outward form the morality may be blame- 
less,, and even beautiful, and the act of 
praying may be a sign of deep devotion ; 
but how empty must be morality and wor- 
ship without the doctrine of an adorable 
and compassionate God ! Only contrast the 

150 



TLbc Hpolog^ ot Comparatit^e IReltglon 

depth and beauty of Jesus's summary of all 
the law and the prophets : ' ' Thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
and thy neighbor as thyself." 

But the boast and glory of Buddhism are 
the so-called " four noble truths." If the 
system has anything that can be rationally 
claimed to rival or surpass Christianity it 
must be sought in these. Briefly stated, 
they are as follows: i. All existence is 
evil. 2. This evil is the consequence of 
desire. 3. Desire and its resultant evils 
may be made to cease. 4. There is an 
eightfold path by which to obtain exemp- 
tion from all evil and desire. 

We might pause at this point and chal- 
lenge every one of these four proposi- 
tions. But, remembering that such univer- 
sal propositions are likely to contain some 
elements of truth, we waive criticism until 
we examine the *' eightfold path." That 
wonderful way, which is to lead men out 
of all evil, is said to consist of (i) right 
belief; (2) right judgment; (3) right utter- 
ance; (4) right motives; (5) right occupa- 
tion ; (6) right obedience ; (7) right mem- 
ory; (8) right meditation. All these eight 
things seem very good. To be right in all 

151 



Ubc IRew HpolOGCtic 

manner of thought, feeling, and action is 
a consummation devoutly to be wished. 
The many good things which Buddhism 
may claim to have accomplished accord 
with the teaching of this eightfold path. 
It breathes a humane spirit, inculcates tol- 
eration, peace, and good conduct, is averse 
to war, treats woman better than any other 
oriental religion, and proclaims that there 
is no rest in the outer fashions of the 
world. 

But the seeker after truth will reasonably 
ask why so many right things have pro- 
duced so many wrong things as we find in 
the historical development of Buddhism. 
The name '* Buddha " means '* the enlight- 
ened one;" but we do not find that his 
system sheds any remarkable light on 
the problems of being. His right doc- 
trine means simply the peculiar doctrines 
of Buddhism. Right judgment is dis- 
played by forsaking one's home and fam- 
ily. Right occupation of the highest 
grade is the life of a mendicant dependent 
on the alms of others. Practically, this 
boasted eightfold path begins with indefi- 
nite assumptions, and ends in a dreamy 
and dreary mysticism. Assuming that all 

152 



XTbe HpoloG^ of Comparative IReltgton 

evil originates in desire, it seems to seek 
tlie destruction of desire by the annihila- 
tion of the conscious personality of the in- 
dividual. The goal of noblest being is to 
attain a sort of absorption into the final 
rest of what is called Nirvayia, but which is 
so intangible to thought that the profound- 
est students of the system are unable to 
agree on just what is intended by that 
word.* 

Christianity and Buddhism alike testify 
that ''the whole creation groaneth and 
travaileth together until now." But how 
opposite the'ir ideas of salvation ! Bud- 
dhism would escape suffering by the anni- 
hilation of the conscious sufferer ; Christian- 
ity lifts up the sublime watchword, * ' Perfect 
through suffering." Buddhism sees noth- 
ing good in the body and tortures it by 
ascetic mortification; Christianity says, 

* Put over against this eightfold path Paul's sixfold exhor- 
tation to the Philippian brethren to observe "whatsoever 
things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever 
things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever 
things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report" 
(Phil, iv, 8). These six things are as good in the abstract 
and as comprehensive as all the eight things, so fundamental 
and exhaustive, of the Buddhist way of salvation ; but how 
far short they come of exhausting what the Christian teacher 
has to say of the way of life ? 

153 



Xlbe naew Hpologettc 

*' Glorify God in your body." Buddhism 
says, • * Withdraw from the world and let it 
alone;" Christianity says, ''Overcome the 
world and make it better." Buddhism in- 
culcates inactivity, repose, solitude ; but 
Christianity says, ''Be diligent, and work 
while the day lasts." The highest style of 
Buddhist saint is a hermit clothed in rags, 
and seeking by self-mortification to lose his 
conscious being in Nirvana ; the Christian 
saint is rather the happy, cheerful man, 
clothed with all outward and inward graces, 
dwelling in the midst of an esteemed fam- 
ily, loving God and his neighbor, and 
laboring to make all around him better. 
Buddhism has no blessed hope of heavenly 
felicity with the saints in light, but only 
the vague and mystic ideal of absorption in 
the universal essence ; Christianity points 
the believer to the heavenly Father's house 
of many mansions, and assures him that 
' ' the Lamb that is in the midst of the 
throne shall be their shepherd, and shall 
lead them to fountains of waters of life, and 
God shall wipe away every tear from their 
eyes." 

It is not necessary to proceed further 
with this argument. If Christianity is, be- 

154 



Zbc Hpolog^ ot Comparative IRelloion 

yond all question, superior to Confucian- 
ism and Buddhism, it is quite needless to 
inquire further among the other religions 
of the world. They have all been searched 
out sufficiently to warrant the statement 
just made. In view of the analysis of the 
two most conspicuous religions which can 
be well supposed to rival Christianity, what 
becomes of the notion that one religion is 
as good as another, or what reason is there 
in the idea that Confucianism is better for 
the Chinaman than the Gospel of Jesus? 
Deeper and sounder reasons there are for 
believing that the millions of the "black- 
haired people " must come into possession 
of a religion more spiritual than Confucian- 
ism before they can rise to a higher and 
more progressive civilization. The same 
is to be said of the devotees of Buddha. 
So long as a dirty, ragged mendicant is the 
highest ideal of a saint, there is room for a 
purer religion. 

Our conclusion from this comparative 
study of the religions of the world may be 
stated in the following propositions : 

I. There are elements of truth in all re- 
ligions, and the Christian apologist should 
fairly and frankly acknowledge this fact 

155 



XTbe "fflew Hpologetic 

whenever he is called upon to defend his 
own faith against the claims of a rival re- 
ligion. His own defense may be made more 
valid and convincing by affirming this prop- 
osition than by denying it. 

2. In the nature of things, that religion 
must be most authoritative which can best 
prove its superior fitness to meet all the re- 
ligious wants of man and supply them in 
the most helpful form. Xo apology for 
Christianity is more far-reaching and con- 
trolling than this very plea. "We maintain 
that there is no excellence known to any re- 
ligion and no element needful to supply the 
spiritual wants of man which are not to be 
found in the Gospel of Christ. 

3. AVe maintain, accordingly, that Chris- 
tianity is sooner or later to become the uni- 
versal religion. ^Moonlight is better than 
starlight, and sunlight is better than both. 
And, as the moon and stars become invisi- 
ble before the greater light that rules the 
day, so must all the lesser religions disap- 
pear as the Sun of righteousness arises with 
universal healing in his wings. 

156 



^[)t |)o0tttt)c ^pobgg 



11 



Ube positive Hpolog^ 

V 

The Positive Apology 

The preceding lectures of this course 
have been largely negative in their charac- 
ter. Their aim has been to suggest the 
Christian apologist's best method of defend- 
ing his faith against the skeptical attacks 
of philosophy, criticism, and rival religions. 
Toward some of these forms of assault the 
wise and thoughtful apologist will assume 
only a negative attitude. He will remember 
that, in some of their opinions and methods, 
the older defenders of the faith were in the 
wrong. The modern apology must differ 
from those of former times in displaying a 
keener analysis of the issues raised. Some 
time-honored doctrines need restatement 
and adjustment to the changed conditions 
of the modern world. We must learn to 
distinguish between apologetics and polem- 
ics. Our task is not to fight Arianism, 
Socinianism, Calvinism, Arminianism, and 
Universalism. It is rather with those who 
deny the claims of Christianity itself that 
the apologist has to contend. 

159 



^be IPlew HpoloGCtic 

Accordingly, when called to defend our 
religion against assailants who question its 
fundamental truths, our position is one of 
defense, and not of aggression. But, if we 
are confident of the truth of our cause, we 
will not stop at the negative standpoint of a 
mere defense of our religion. Christianity 
has her positive apology. We are not 
ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, but rather 
bold and persistent to declare and urge its 
claims on all the world. At the proper times 
and places we shall appropriate in substance 
the words of our divine Master, and say to 
all the other religionists of the world, "Ye 
worship ye know not what ; we know what 
we worship." For the absolute and univer- 
sal religion is the outgrowth and blossom- 
ing of the Hebrew and Jewish revelation, 
and God, who ''spoke in old time unto the 
fathers by the prophets, hath in these last 
days spoken unto us by his Son whom he 
hath appointed heir of all things." 

I. In presenting, now, a number of the 
various arguments of our positive apology, 
the first and fundamental contention is that 
Christianity is not simply one of the great 
religions of the world, but the religion, which 
alone has in it all the elements essential to 

160 



the spiritual needs of man. Other religions 
have many good things ; Christianity has all 
good things. Christ is not merely one 
among many masters; he is the Lord and 
Master of all, "the way, the truth, and the 
life," ** the first and the last," the Prophet, 
Priest, and King. His name is to be hon- 
ored above every name, " that at the name 
of Jesus every knee should bow, of things 
in heaven, and things on earth, and things 
under the earth, and that every tongue 
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to 
the glory of God the Father" (Phil, ii, lo, 1 1). 
2. I mention, next, as an evidence of 
the indestructible vitality of Christianity, 
its remarkable survival of the many errors 
and follies of its adherents. One of the 
horrible infatuations which possessed great 
leaders of the Church for a thousand years 
was the supposed necessity of burning here- 
tics. This was in part an inheritance from 
ethnic barbarism ; and the Roman Church 
quite naturally appropriated it from the cus- 
toms of the empire. It also assumed to de- 
rive authority for it from the old Mosaic 
law : * * Thou shalt not suffer a witch to 
live." Another deplorable fact of history 
has been the quarrels of Christendom over 

161 



XTbe IRew BpolOGCtic 

matters of no importance, such as forms of 
observing divine worship, images of saints 
in churches, prerogatives of ministers, the 
merit of fasts and pilgrimages and relics. 
There are denominations of Christians whose 
chief reason for existence is in some ques- 
tion of dress, or in keeping Saturday for 
the Sabbath, or in the mode of baptism, or 
in the opinion that a Christian man ought 
not to vote under a government that does 
not recognize God in the national Constitu- 
tion. One of the denominations of Chris- 
tians in the United States claims to be the 
only true Church of God in America be- 
cause its clergy are said to be the only min- 
isters whose ordination has come, without a 
break, through human fingers, from the 
apostles down ! Is it any wonder that great 
religious natures, like that of Abraham 
Lincoln, while profoundly convinced of the 
divinity of Christianity, decline to commit 
themselves to the shibboleths of Churches 
that keep up such controversy over little 
things? Now, the religion which, in spite 
of all these aberrations of human frailty, 
has held its steady, onward sway until it is 
recognized as preeminently the religion of 
the most commanding nations of the world 

162 



TLbc positive Hpoloai^ 

— that religion must needs be essentially 
divine, 

3. As an offset to the humiliating facts 
just mentioned, it is to be further remarked 
that Christianity is the religion of free 
thought. We invite the fullest possible in- 
vestigation, and are most happy to submit 
our doctrines and all our special claims to 
the impartial judgment of mankind. Chris- 
tianity is the religion of science and culture, 
the patron of all ennobling art and litera- 
ture. We have no fear that this holy re- 
ligion will be harmed by exposure to the 
most searching light. If such tests but 
purge away the accretions of error, which 
are no real elements of the system, they 
will serve only to set in clearer light the 
fundamental excellences of the Gospel and 
vindicate its right to the general acceptance 
of mankind. We urge no plea for Chris- 
tianity with greater confidence than that it 
is a rational religion, and not to be com- 
promised by that assumption of some for- 
mer apologists who imagined that they 
were exalting the truth of God by positing 
revelation against reason. 

4. We urge, further, that Christianity is 
the great missionary religion of the world. 

163 



TOe View Bpologetlc : 

One element of its superior efficiency is its ; 
rational and self-evidencing power. We ! 
are bold to go to any non-Christian people 
and say, '* We have a better system of 
thought and life than yours. Come and let 1 
us reason together." Does Confucianism i 
honor parents and the dignity of moral law? ' 
Christianity honors father and mother more i 
rationally than by superstitious forms of I 
ancestral worship, and it exalts ethical ■< 
purity on deeper principles by making all 
the law and the prophets hang upon the 
great commandment of love, first, of God : 
and, secondly, of man. We oppose a pure | 
Gospel of salvation against the polytheism i 
and pantheism of India, confident that at 
this hour it is effectually sapping the foun- ; 
dations of Brahmanism in that ancient land i 
of the Veda. How beautiful is the Christian \ 
doctrine of the incarnation as contrasted with i 
the avatars of Hindu mythology? When in j 
1864 Bishop Thomson organized the first 
India Mission Conference he said: ** I envy ; 
the brother to be stationed at Sambhal. Be- i 
neath that temple, guarded and venerated as 
the cradle of an incarnate deity, I would < 
preach as Paul did at the altar of the un- 
known God." \ 

164 i 



Zbc positive Hpologp 

In that spirit we go forth into the pres- 
ence of all the religions of the world and 
insist that they have no truth or excel- 
lence which we cannot parallel and sur- 
pass. And, beyond the best that they 
can show, the Christian system provides 
for the remission of sin, the purification 
of the heart, the sanctity of the home 
and family, and it is entitled more than 
any other to be called ' * the religion of 
humanity." Where other religions offer 
to the hungering and thirsting spirit only 
stones and serpents, Christianity offers the 
bread of heaven and the water of eternal 
life. 

5. As another positive argument for the 
Christian faith we point to the religious 
experience and life of the true disciple of 
Jesus. Conscious of sin and guilt, he does 
not, like the Brahman and the Buddhist, go 
about seeking through bodily tortures to 
rescue himself from the evil ; but he repents 
of his sin, accepts the Lord Jesus as his re- 
deeming Saviour, and, being justified by 
faith, has peace with God, and holy joy, and 
blessed hope, and freedom from condem- 
nation. And, besides all this, giving all 
diligence, he adds to his faith virtue ; and to 

165 



XTbe Haew Hpologetic 

virtue, knowledge ; and to knowledge, tem- 
perance ; and to temperance, patience ; and 
to patience, godliness. **The time past," 
he says, ** is sufficient to have wrought the 
will of the Gentiles, and to have walked in 
lasciviousness, winebibbing, carousing, and 
such like ; henceforth I walk in the Spirit, 
and do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh." 
We point to the conversion of such men 
as Saul of Tarsus, and Augustine, and 
John Bunyan, and to the saintly lives 
and triumphant deaths of an innumerable 
company who have made the world better 
than they found it, and we say, ** These 
are some of the positive evidences of Chris- 
tianity." 

6. We hold up as another reason of our 
devotion to Christianity its blessed adapta- 
tion to the necessities and longings of man's 
spiritual nature. What significance to the 
Christian consciousness have such expres- 
sions as '* peace with God," '' the righteous- 
ness of faith," *' full assurance of hope," 
*'joy in the Holy Ghost," ''the love of 
Christ which passeth knowledge ! " What 
elevation of spirit in a prayer which con- 
fidingly invokes ''the God of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, the Father of glory," to give 

166 



Ubc positive Hpolog^ 

* * unto you a spirit of wisdom and revela- 
tion in the knowledge* of him ; having the 
eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may 
know what is the hope of his calling, what 
the riches of the glory of his inheritance in 
the saints, and what the exceeding great- 
ness of his power to us-ward who believe, 
according to that working of the strength 
of his might which he wrought in Christ, 
when he raised him from the dead, and 
made him to sit at his right hand in the 
heavenlies, far above all rule, and authority, 
and power, and dominion, and every name 
that is named, not only in this world, but 
also in that which is to come " (Eph. i, 17- 
2 1). Where in all literatures, or in all the 
fondest dreams of human imagination, can 
there be found a balm so healing and per- 
manently soothing to the soul as these 
words have been to Christian believers dur- 
ing all the centuries ? 

Christian hymnology has caught the in- 
spiration of these heavenly thoughts and 
woven them into the songs of the Church, 

* We may note the suggestive Greek word k-rziyvuGiq^ here 
translated " knowledge." It means full, thorough, correct 
knowledge. The Christian who has the full knowledge of 
Christ here invoked is not a gnostic, much less an agnostic, 
but he is an epignostic. 

167 



Ubc IFlew Hpologetic 

so that all over the world myriads of hearts 
and voices are saying : 

" Lord, how secure and blest are they 
Who feel the joys of pardoned sin ! " 



"Jesus, where'er thy people meet, 
There they behold thy mercy-seat." 



*' Jesus ! the name that charms our fears. 
That bids our sorrows cease." 



*' How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, 
Is laid for your faith in his excellent word ! " 



" We may not climb the heavenly steeps 

To bring the Lord Christ down ; 
In vain we search the lowest deeps. 

For him no depths can drovm. 

" But warm, sweet, tender, even yet 

A present help is he ; 
And faith has yet its Olivet, 

And love its Galilee." 

That religion is positively full of comfort 
and assurance whose divine Founder, speak- 
ing as from the bosom of the eternal 
Father, says, **Come unto me, all ye that 
labor and are heavy laden, and I will give 

168 



TLbc positive Hpologi? 

you rest." And millions of human hearts 
are every day responding : 

"Jesus, Lover of my soul, 
Let me to thy bosom fly." 



" Rock of ages, cleft for me, 
Let me hide myself in thee." 



" I know thee, Saviour, who thou art, 
Jesus, the feeble sinner's Friend ; 

Nor wilt thou with the night depart. 
But stay and love me to the end : 

Thy mercies never shall remove ; 

Thy nature and thy name is Love." 

7. Another positive claim of the Chris- 
tian religion is its beneficial effects on human 
society. It everywhere makes for peace 
and righteousness. Unlike much that goes 
abroad to-day under the name of socialism 
and scatters pessimistic seeds of anarchy, 
Christianity teaches the only true sociology. 
For sociology, in the deepest and truest 
sense, is only one phase of Christian soteri- 
ology. Those would-be reformers who re- 
fuse to recognize the facts of sin and guilt 
in the human heart cannot produce a sound 
system of sociology. He who professes to 
observe the Golden Rule and love his 

169 



Zbc IRew Hpologetlc 

neighbor as himself will not be the highest 
success unless he first know what it is to 
love God with all his heart. The Lord Je- 
sus said, '*Ye must be born again." All 
radical and successful reforms in human 
life and society must begin in the indi- 
vidual heart. In his Notes on the Miracles^ 
Trench beautifully suggests how the first 
miracle that Jesus wrought, in Cana of Gal- 
ilee, is a symbol of his entire redeeming 
work among men. "Apart from all that 
is local and temporary," he says, ** this mir- 
acle may be taken as the sign and symbol 
of all which Christ is evermore doing in 
the world — ennobling all that he touches, 
making saints out of sinners, angels out of 
men, and in the end heaven out of earth, a 
new paradise of God out of the old wilder- 
ness of the world " (p. 98). 

8. This glorious thought connects nat- 
urally with another which should be men- 
tioned as a positive feature of the Gos- 
pel of the blessed God. The goal toward 
which Christianity ever aims and moves is 
the regeneration and restitution of all things. 
**We look for a new heaven and earth, 
wherein dwelleth righteousness." The 
golden age of Christianity is in the future, 

170 



XTbe positive Hpolog^ 

not in the past. The kingdom of God and 
of Christ is like the mustard seed, and the 
leaven, and the stone cut out of the moun- 
tain which rolled onward until it filled the 
earth. The New Jerusalem of John's 
'Apocalypse is not so much a picture of 
celestial life in some ' ' far-away home of 
the soul " as it is of heaven coming down 
to earth, the tabernacle of God among 
men. And so we believe the word of 
prophecy, that " the earth shall be filled 
with the knowledge of the glory of God, 
as the waters cover the sea" (Hab. ii, 14). 
** The Gentiles shall come to thy light, 
and kings to the brightness of thy rising " 
(Isa. Ix, 3). All nations shall delight to 
walk in his ways ; * ' and they shall beat 
their swords into plowshares, and their 
spears into pruning hooks: nation shall 
not lift up sword against nation, neither 
shall they learn war any more " (Micah 

iv, 3)- 

9. Among the positive arguments for 
Christianity we must not fail to mention 
her Holy Scriptures, which are so unspeak- 
ably profitable for teaching, for correction , 
for rebuke, for consolation, for instruction 
in righteousness. This divine purpose of 



XTbe Ticvo Hpolo^etic 

the Bible is not weakened, but rather 
strengthened, by the most searching criti- 
cism. The more thorough the criticism, 
the more clearly is it seen that the divine 
power is not in the letter which killeth, 
but in the spirit which giveth life. Bring 
forward all the rival scriptures of the 
world ; memorize the noblest Vedic hymns ; 
select the choicest sayings of Buddha from 
the voluminous Tripitaka ; search the Con- 
fucian classics and the sacred books of 
Babylon and Assyria and Persia; peruse 
Egyptian ritual and Moslem Koran and 
Scandinavian Eddas ; and then come back 
to the Christian's Bible and you will say, 
* ' Those scriptures of the nations are a 
gloomy and confusing wilderness, lighted 
by here and there a noticeable star; but 
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- 
ments are a paradise of God, having many 
.a tree of life with healing leaves, and over 
and through it all the Sun of righteousness 
shines with perennial rays." Blessed is 
the man who, like Timothy, has from 
childhood known these Holy Scriptures, 
which are able to make him wise unto sal- 
vation through faith in Jesus Christ. - 

lo. But the great and crowning apology 

172 



Ubc positive Hpolo^l^ 

of Christianity is Jesus Christ himself. His 
commanding' personality can never fail to 
attract the respectful attention of all truth- 
loving minds; and the apologetic argument 
derived from that unique and adorable per- 
sonality is now generally recognized as both 
fundamental and final. This argument has 
been worked into the best literature and the 
best preaching of these latest times. It has 
been presented in so many ways that one 
hardly knows how to make a selection from 
the rich stores of thought that have accumu- 
lated about this one ideal. Who is this, we 
ask, and what the explanation and signifi- 
cance of One who appears among men as 
holy, harmless, undefiled, tempted like other 
men, but without sin ? ' ' This Jesus of Naz- 
areth," said the late Dr. Philip Schaff, 
* * without money and arms, conquered more 
millions than Alexander, Caesar, Moham- 
med, and Napoleon ; without science and 
learning, he shed more light on things 
human and divine than all the philosophers 
and scholars combined ; without the elo- 
quence of schools, he spoke words of life 
such as were never spoken before or since, 
and produced effects which lie beyond the 
reach pf orator or poet ; without writing a 

13 "^ 



XTbe IRew Bpoloaetic 

single line, he has set more pens in motion 
and furnished themes for more sermons, 
orations, and discussions, learned volumes, 
works of art, and sweet songs of praise 
than the whole army of great men of ancient 
and modern times. Born in a manger and 
crucified as a malefactor, he now controls 
the destinies of the civilized world and 
rules a spiritual empire which embraces one 
third of the inhabitants of the globe. ""^ 

How shall we account for this remarkable 
phenomenon of human history ? It is no 
longer a question whether this Jesus of 
Nazareth lived, suffered, and died. No 
man of average information and sobriety 
denies to-day the main facts of Jesus's life. 
The great task of those who deny his di- 
vinity is to produce some rational explana- 
tion of a life so marvelous. The difficulty 
of this task will appear more clearly when 
we consider more in detail a number of the 
facts in the life and character of Jesus : 

(i) A first consideration is the impossibil- 
ity of finding anything in the outward con- 
ditions of the life of Jesus sufficient to ac- 

* The Christ of the Gospels, p. 37. Reprinted, with revi- 
sions and additions, from the British and Foreign EvangeU 
ical Review. , 

174 



XLbc positive Hpology 

count for his immense influence and power. 
This argument has been elaborated with 
great ability by Dr. John Young, of Edin- 
burgh, in his little volume entitled The 
Christ of History.'^ Attention is called to 
the obscure parentage of Jesus, the con- 
tempt that attached to his home in Nazareth, 
his occupation as a carpenter, his association 
through life with the poor and lowly, his 
dependence during his public career on the 
benevolence of his friends, and the notable 
fact that he mingled freely with publicans 
and sinners. He was not learned in the 
usual conception of learning. He obtained 
no friendly recognition from those in power. 
Even Nicodemus and Joseph of Arima- 
thaea dared not openly avow him. There 
was nothing, therefore, in his social position 
to account for his remarkable influence on 
his generation. On the contrary, every- 
thing of this kind was against him. 

The shortness of his public career is 
another fact to be noted. His first thirty 
years were spent in comparative obscurity. 
The only event likely to attract attention 
was his appearance in the temple when he 

* The Christ of History : an Argument Grounded on the 
Facts of his Life on Earth. New York, 1866. 

175 



Ubc IRew Hpolo^etic 

was twelve years old ; but there is no evi- 
dence that it created any lasting impression 
except in the heart of his mother. His 
public ministry lasted little more than three 
years. Some, both in ancient and modern 
times, have argued that it lasted less than 
two years. Origen says, '' He taught only 
during a year and some months, but the 
whole world became filled with his doc- 
trine, and with faith in his religion." 
The great sages who have made a lasting 
impression on the thought of the world 
lived to mature age, and so had the oppor- 
tunities of many years to inculcate their 
ideas. Confucius and Buddha lived to 
propagate their doctrines for nearly half 
a century. But how utterly inadequate, on 
all ordinary probabilities, were two, three, 
or even four years for Jesus to secure the 
boundless fame and influence which attach 
to his personality? 

Consider, further, how the ignominy and 
shame of crucifixion between two robbers 
must have blighted the hopes of his follow- 
ers. The unbelieving Jew, the arrogant 
scoffer, and the most extreme rationalist 
have never had any difficulty in believing 
that Jesus died according to the Scriptures. 

1Y6 



Zbc positive Hpology 

The satire of Lucian stigmatized Jesus as 
** the crucified sophist." An ancient gr a/- 
jito, discovered at Rome amid the ruins of the 
palace of the Caesars, presents a vile carica- 
ture of Christian worship under the figure 
of a short man standing in the attitude of 
adoration before the crucified image of a 
man with the head of an ass. Under it, in 
rude Greek letters, is the inscription, 
** Alexamenos worships his God! " How, 
now, could any man, in the face of such re- 
proach and shame and derision, multiply 
his influences and the number of his fol- 
lowers age after age, until all that calumny 
is silenced and the cross itself has become 
the symbol of that which is most sacred to 
human thought? 

We know well enough that here and 
there a great genius has at times risen 
above the conditions of obscure birth and a 
life of poverty. These alone are no in- 
superable obstacle to triumphs of genius. 
But when you add all the other facts re- 
ferred to the spectacle becomes sublimely 
unique. You will look in vain through all 
the annals of history to find another men 
who, with all those conditions against him, 
in a ministry of three years, cut off by 

177 



Ube Bew Hpologetic 

shameful crucifixion, has commanded a 
thousandth part of the influence which the 
name of Jesus has in the world to-day. 

(2) The next fact to be noticed is the power 
and authority of his teaching. ' ' Never man 
spoke like this man." He taught the mul- 
titudes ''as one having authority, and not 
as the scribes." He wasted no time over 
idle speculations, such as characterize much 
of the Socratic wisdom and fill pages of 
Plato and Aristotle. He talked very ex- 
temporaneously, but he talked to amazing 
purpose. There is nothing in his method 
that looks like the policy of a man calcu- 
lating on effects or shaping means to ends. 
He scandalized the Jewish teachers of his 
time by his free handling of national cus- 
toms. His ideal of the long-expected Mes- 
siah was very different from that which 
was current among the Jewish people. He 
boldly assumed to supplement, and even 
set aside, what was said by them of old 
time. He made himself greater than Moses 
and the prophets. He spoke in parables 
which remain to this day as jewels in the 
literature of the world. And when sur- 
rounded by his enemies and an excitable 
crowd he did not shrink from employing 

178 



XTbe positive Hpologi^ 

sucli language as, '' Woe unto you, scribes 
and Pharisees, hypocrites; for ye shut up 
the kingdom of heaven against men." '* Ye 
cleanse the outside of the cup and of the 
platter, but within they are full of extortion 
and excess." ''Ye are like whited sepul- 
chers, full of dead men's bones and all un- 
cleanness." " Ye blind guides!" " Ye ser- 
pents, ye generation of vipers, how shall ye 
escape the judgment of hell?" Such lan- 
guage evinces the Teacher who is confident 
in truth and sublime in his consciousness of 
divine power. 

(3) Observe in the next place the mar- 
velous self-expression of this prophet of 
Nazareth. Who and what is he that, with 
a quiet and calm assurance, says: " I am 
the light of the world. ... I am the way, 
and the truth, and the life. ... I am the 
bread of life. ... If any man eat of this 
bread, he shall live forever. ... I am the 
resurrection, and the life. . . . Whosoever 
liveth, and belie veth in me, shall never die. 
. . . Before Abraham was, I am. . . . And 
if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw 
all men unto me." These sayings, to be 
sure, are all in the gospel of John, and 
some argue that they are the idealized por- 

119 



ITbe ticxQ Hpologetlc 

trait of a Christian writer a hundred years 
after the death of Jesus. But even if the 
fourth gospel be allowed such a character 
we may still ask, Whence came this glorious 
ideal? The synoptic gospels witness the 
same calm self-assumption. He declares his 
authority on earth to forgive sins (Matt, 
ix, 6; Luke v, 24), and declares himself 
Lord of the Sabbath day (Matt, xii, 8 ; 
Mark ii, 28). He not only assumes to be 
greater than Solomon and greater than the 
temple (Matt, xii, 6, 42), but he says: '* All 
things have been delivered unto me of my 
Father: and no man knoweth the Son, save 
the Father ; neither doth any know the Fa- 
ther, save the Son, and he to whomsoever 
the Son willeth to reveal him. Come unto 
me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, 
and I will give you rest" (Matt, xi, 27, 28; 
Luke X, 22). He also speaks of his coming 
in the glory of his Father and the holy an- 
gels and rewarding every man according to 
his works. At the last supper, in giving 
the bread and wine, he said, *'Eat and 
drink of these, for they are my body and 
my blood." 

Dr. Bushnell lays great stress on these 
** astonishing pretensions of Jesus." *' Was 

180 



XLbc positive HpolOGP 

there ever displayed," he asks, ** an example 
of effrontery and spiritual conceit so prepos- 
terous? Was there ever a man that dared 
put himself on the world in such preten- 
sions — as if all light was in him, as if to 
follow him and be worthy of him was to be 
the conclusive or chief excellence of man- 
kind? What but mockery and disgust does 
he challenge as the certain reward of his 
audacity ? But no one is offended with Jesus 
on this account ; and — what is a sure test of 
his success — it is remarkable that, of all the 
readers of the Gospel, it probably never oc- 
curs to one in a hundred thousand to blame 
his conceit or the egregious vanity of his 
pretensions. . . . For eighteen hundred 
years these prodigious assumptions have 
been published and preached to a world that 
is quick to lay hold of conceit and bring 
down the lofty airs of pretenders ; and yet, 
during all this time, whole nations of people, 
composing as well the learned and powerful 
as the ignorant and humble, have paid their 
homage to the name of Jesus, detecting 
never any disagreement between his merits 
and his pretensions, offended never by any 
thought of his extravagance. In which we 
have absolute proof that he practically main- 

181 



XLbc IRew Hpologetic 

tains his amazing assumptions. Indeed, it 
will even be found that, in the common ap- 
prehension of the race, he maintains the 
merit of a most peculiar modesty, produc- 
ing no conviction more distinctly than that 
of his intense lowliness and humility. His 
worth is seen to be so great, his authority 
so high, his spirit so celestial, that, instead 
of being offended by his pretensions, we 
take the impression of one in whom it is 
even a condescension to breathe our air." * 

(4) Another conspicuous fact which places 
Jesus far above and apart from other men 
is his sinlessness. One of his most memo- 
rable sayings is, '' Which of you convinceth 
me of sin? " This phase of our Lord's char- 
acter is made the subject of Karl Ullmann's 
volume entitled T/ie Sinlessness of Jesus an 
Evidence of Christianity, The book is one 
of the most important contributions to the 
literature of apologetics made in modern 
times, f 

The sinlessness of Christ is evinced, not 
from his own testimony only, but by the 
entire portraiture of his spotless character 

* Nature and the Supernatural, chap, x pp. 289-291. 
New York, 1859. 
f English translation by Sophia Taylor. Edinburgh, 1882. 

182 



Ubc positive Hpolog^ 

as presented in the four gospels, and by tlie 
additional testimony of the apostolical writ- 
ings. These all witness that he was ' ' holy, 
harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners ;" 
that he " did no sin, neither was guile found 
in his mouth ;" that he '^ was tempted in all 
points like as we are, yet without sin." He 
is called ' * a Lamb without blemish and 
without spot." From childhood up to the 
end of his life he maintained a record of 
spotless purity. He is called ''the Right- 
eous " and '' the Holy One." Pilate and his 
wife show, in their testimony to the fault- 
less character of ''that just man," what a 
profound impression his blamelessness had 
made on those without the immediate circle 
of his followers. Not the slightest shadow 
was ever cast upon his moral excellence. 
He assumed power and authority to forgive 
the sins of others, but never allowed or ac- 
knowledged the least need of repentance on 
his own part. And no one ever declared 
the terrible nature of sin or disclosed its 
"exceeding sinfulness" more searchingly 
than he. 

What a mighty apology for Christian- 
ity, then, is this immaculate purity of its 
Founder? Some few sticklers, sorely be- 

183 



Zbc t\c\o Hpologetic 

stead, have presumed to find fault with his 
cursing a barren fig tree, his driving the 
money changers out of the temple, and his 
calling the hypocritical scribes and Phari- 
sees a brood of vipers. But it is evidence 
of the hopelessness of their aim when these 
sublime and significant acts in Jesus's min- 
istry are viewed with such an evil eye. 

(5) It remains now to speak, in conclu- 
sion, of the supernatural element in this 
adorable personality. If it has been made 
clear that the natural conditions of his 
earthly life furnish nothing sufficient to ac- 
count for his transcendent influence in the 
world ; if his doctrines are far in advance 
of those of any other religious teacher of 
the ages ; if his amazing but calm expres- 
sion of a consciousness of power over life 
and death — power to forgive sins, power in 
heaven as well as upon earth — implies such 
unity with God as no other man has ever 
known ; and if, with all this, he stands be- 
fore the world as a character of immaculate 
purity whom no man can convict of sin, our 
only rational conclusion is that he must have 
been something more than man. What, 
then, is that ''unknown quantity" which will 
solve the problem of such a transcendent life ? 

184 



XTbe positive Bpolog^ 

If we allow the Scriptures to explain 
themselves, and accept that solution which 
the Christian Church has held for nineteen 
centuries, we simply affirm that Jesus Christ 
was a supernatural incarnation of devine 
wisdom and power. We believe the per- 
sonality of Jesus and the facts of his life 
are explicable in no other way. But this 
hypothesis logically explains the mystery, 
and it is the obvious doctrine of the New 
Testament. Why not accept it as the true 
solution? We may well say in the words of 
John Milton: " If our understanding have 
a film of ignorance over it or be blear with 
gazing on other false glisterings, what is 
that to truth? If we would but purge with 
sovereign eyesalve that intellectual ray 
which God hath planted in us, then we 
would believe the Scriptures protesting 
their own plainness and perspicuity, call- 
ing to them to be instructed ; not only the 
wise and the learned, but the simple, the 
poor, the babes."* 

The miracles of Jesus were numerous 
and of a varied character. There were 
miracles in the realm of nature, such as 
multiplying the loaves, walking on the 

* Refortnation in England, book i. 
185 



XLbe IFlew Hpologettc 

water, and stilling the tempest ; miracles of 
healing, which comprise the greater num- 
ber of the mighty works of Jesus ; and the 
miracles of resurrection, of which we have 
the four examples of Jairus's daughter, 
the son of the widow of Nain, Lazarus, and 
Jesus Christ himself. The one great fact to 
be noticed in all these miracles is their pro- 
found significance in the self-revelation of 
our Lord. You cannot separate the mighty- 
works from the teaching of Jesus, for his 
works and words form one harmonious 
whole. The most searching criticism finds 
that the earliest oral tradition and written 
sources of the synoptic gospels must have 
been to a remarkable extent a ** miracle - 
gospel." This fact is an insuperable dif- 
ficulty in the way of the naturalistic and 
the mythical theories of the origin of the 
Gospel narratives. They utterly fail to 
solve the wonderful problem. The earliest 
sources of the synoptic gospels were too 
near the facts recorded to admit the sup- 
positions of the rationalistic theories; and 
we must conclude that the original tradi- 
tion, received from eyewitnesses, reported 
the miracles as accepted facts. 

The new apologetic, however, will not 

186 



TLbc positive Hpologi? 

define miracles after the fashion of the 
eighteenth century. The men who replied 
to Hume's famous argument virtually ad- 
mitted that, if miracles were not violations 
of the order of nature, they were, at all 
events, a suspension of nature's law or a devi- 
ation from them contrary to the established 
constitution of the world. The theistic doc- 
trine of evolution has changed this entire 
concept of the order of nature. The world 
is not an inanimate machine, attached to 
certain *' laws of nature" and left to run 
itself. It is, rather, a continuous manifes- 
tation of God, who immediately upholds 
and rules all things, visible and invisible. 
In the whole realm of nature we recognize 
the abiding truth of Jesus's word, " My 
Father worketh hitherto, and I work." 
Each new departure from the past is but an 
onward step in the progress of God's eter- 
nal plan of the world. The exodus of 
Israel from Egypt, the Babylonian exile 
and its discipline for the Jewish people, 
the conversion of Paul, the evolution of 
Martin Luther and John Wesley and George 
Washington, are all parts of one great 
order of nature, carried onward by the 
direction of one eternal Mind. Jesus Christ 

187 



XLbc Bew Hpolo^ettc 

is himself an evolution from the bosom of 
the everlasting Father ; and his resurrection 
from the dead was an essential part of the 
vsublime manifestation. The miracles of 
Jesus, according to this view, were no more 
violations, or suspensions, or deviations 
from the order of nature than are any other 
works wrought for a definite purpose by one 
who knows what he is doing.* Which is 

* Beyond this general but truly scriptural conception, is 
there not a latent fallacy in any formal attempt to define a 
miracle ? A definition that assumes to be full and exhaustive 
implicity assumes to explain what, in the nature of things, is 
beyond human knowledge. When we have said that a mira- 
cle is '* a wonderful work of God " we have gone to the ex- 
tent of our ability to define. The same difficulty meets us in 
any attempt to define a "special providence" or "special 
answers to prayer." These are all wonderful works of God, 
inexplicable by us except in general terms. We can only say 
that these are parts of His ways who is past finding out. 
They are not violations of his laws, or deviations from his es- 
tablished plans and purposes. This seems to have been, in 
substance, the answer of Peter and John, when all the people 
were wondering greatly over the miraculous cure of the lame 
man. "Why fasten ye your eyes on us," said Peter, "as 
though by our own power and godliness we had made this 
man to walk ? The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of 
Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Child Jesus. 
. . . And upon the faith of his name hath his name made 
this man strong, whom ye behold and know " (Acts iii, I2, 
13, 16). Here is no other explanation or definition than that 
the miracle was a wonderful work of God, wrought through 
faith in his name. 

188 



tibe positive Hpoloai? 

the grander concept— a mechanical process 
of inert matter, requiring occasional inter- 
positions from without ; or a continual un- 
folding, a series of surprises, an evolution 
planned and guided from first to last by the 
perfect wisdom of supreme Intelligence? 

The miracles of Jesus are, therefore, a 
part of the Messianic plan and order of the 
manifestation of the eternal Father. It is 
significant that so large a proportion of 
them were miracles of healing. These all 
emphasized the great fundamental truth 
that his mission was for the restoration of 
humanity from the curse of sin. Hence, 
to the sick of the palsy it was as suitable 
for him to say, ** Thy sins are forgiven," as 
to say, ** Arise and walk." The nature- 
miracles proclaim him Lord of the elements, 
as well as the Physician of the souls and 
bodies of men. His casting out demons 
displayed his power over all the unseen and 
mysterious forces of the spiritual world. 
His raising others from the dead and his 
own resurrection were but the natural illus- 
trations of his marvelous saying, * ' I am the 
resurrection and the life." And so all his 
mighty works were in splendid harmony 
with the purpose of his mission of salva- 

189 
13 



XTbe IFlew Hpologettc 

tion. Utterly unlike the wizards that have 
performed strange feats to awe and con- 
found the vulgar crowd, he never wrought 
a prodigy for the mere purpose of miracu- 
lous display. He gave no sign when it was 
demanded by the unbelieving multitude, 
nor would he come down from the cross at 
the challenge of his crucifiers.* 

* Very important for the proper understanding of our Lord's 
miracles are the statements put forward in John's gospel in 
their defense. Thus, in John ix, 3-5: "Jesus answered, 
Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents : but that the 
works of God should be made manifest in him. We must 
work the works of him that sent me, while it is day : the 
night Cometh, when no man can work. When I am in the 
world, I am the light of the world." Again, in x, 32, 37, 38 : 
" Many good works have I showed you from the Father ; for 
which of those works do ye stone me ? ... If I do not the 
works of my Father, believe me not. But if 1 do them, 
though ye believe not me, believe the works : that ye may 
know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the 
Father." Again, in xiv, 10-13: "Believest thou not that I 
am in the Father, and the Father in me ? the words that I say 
unto you I speak not from myself : but the Father abiding in 
me doeth his works. Believe me that I am in the Father, 
and the Father in me : or else believe me for the very works' 
sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that believeth on me, 
the works that I do shall he do also ; and greater works than 
these shall he do ; because I go unto the Father. And whatso- 
ever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father 
may be glorified in the Son." Once more, in xv, 22-24 : '* If 
I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin : 
but now they have no excuse for their sin. ... If I had not 
done among them the works which none other did, they 

190 



Zbc positive Hpolog^ 

The evidential value of the miracles of 
Jesus must, accordingly, be viewed in closest 
connection with his divine personality and 
the nature of his mission in the world. 
Apart from these considerations, they can- 
not be put forward as evidences of Christian- 
ity to a modern unbeliever. As we showed 
in a former lecture, no man now believes in 
Christ because of his miracles wrought two 
millenniums ago ; we rather believe the mir- 
acles because we have first come to believe 
in Christ. And now those miracles stand 
in the sacred records as so many conspicuous 
illustrations, symbols, and types of the re- 
demptive work he is continually carrying 
forward in the world. Every recorded mir- 
acle is not only an attested fact, but also a 
parabolic lesson of the kingdom of Christ. 
He ever remains greater than his miracles. 
They are but as shadows of his mighty per- 
sonality.* The miracle in itself is nothing 

had not had sin ; but now have they both seen and hated 
both me and my Father." All these statements show the in- 
separable connection between the mighty works and the 
mighty words of Jesus, and their essential relation to the reve- 
lation of God in Christ. 

* Hence the moral insignificance of mere prodigies. Sepa- 
rated from a great and good personality and without a purpose 
worthy of God, they can only be defined as wonderful works of 
dai^kness. Men have witnessed many such works at the hands 

191 



XLbc IFlew HpolOGCtic 

except as you know its cause and purpose. 
'• No man hath seen God at any time ; the 
only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of 
the Father, he hath declared him;" and the 
miracles of the gospels will continue as long 
as the world stands to be symbolic revela- 
tions of the love of God to man. 

In view of the great noise made in some 
places over alleged ''faith cures" and the 
pretensions of ''Christian science" (falsely 
so called), we do well to observe the com- 
parative estimate which our Lord put upon 
his miracles. While conceding that some 
might believe because of the works he 
wrought, yet, as a rule, he disparaged the 
relative value of mere signs and wonders. 
When the disciples exulted that devils were 
subject to them in his name he said, "Re- 
joice rather that your names are written in 
heaven." In his Life and Times of Jesus the 
Messiah^ Edersheim avers that the miracles 
of Christ, so far from being anything in 
which he took delight, were rather a part of 
his humiliation.* They were of the nature 

of magicians, sorcerers, necromancers, adepts in what have 
been well called " the black arts." They could never give any 
sufficient account of themselves to justify their performance. 
* The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah^ vol. i, p. 489. 
London and New York, 1883. 

192 



Ube lpostti\>e Hpoloa^ 

of a condescension to human weakness, in 
order to prepare the way for something bet- 
ter. So it is with a sigh of pity that he 
says : ' ' Except ye see signs and wonders, 
ye will not believe." With much long-suf- 
fering he showed his hands and side to 
Thomas, and added with profound signifi- 
cance,*' Blessed are they that have not seen, 
and yet have believed." In the face of all 
these teachings, there are those who keep 
on crying, "Show us a sign, and we will 
believe." Some would seem to be willing 
to crucify the Son' of God afresh every day 
if they could only see him come down from 
the cross, for no higher purpose than to con- 
found a scoffing crowd. They would mag- 
nify one prayer test above all the lessons of 
the Sermon on the Mount. They set a 
higher value on one alleged faith cure, that 
has made a local sensation, than on the whole 
record of a saintly life, that has made no 
greater show in the world than to visit the 
fatherless and widows in their affliction and 
keep unspotted from the world. Jesus 
wrought miracles of exceptional character, 
but took pains to say to his disciples that he 
that believed on him should do greater 
works than these (John xiv, 12). He that 

193 



Ube Bew Hpologetic 

converts a sinner from the error of his ways, 
and so saves a soul from death, is greater 
than he that heals a palsied arm. They 
who go about making a great noise over 
miracles of flesh and blood turn men's 
thoughts away from better things and cul- 
tivate morbid superstition, rather than faith 
in Christ. The deepest, highest, broadest 
apology for Christianity is ' ' the love of God 
richly shed abroad in the heart" by the 
power of the Spirit, and *' Christ in you, the 
hope of glory." This far-reaching truth led 
Paul to say : ' ' Though I speak with the 
tongues of men and angels, . . . and have 
all faith so that I could remove mountains, 
and have not love, I am nothing." 

Recognizing, now, the miracles of Jesus 
as a part of his revelation of the Father, we 
must not forget that the Lord Christ himself 
is unspeakably greater than his miracles, 
and he for whom any miracle is wrought 
must needs be greater than the miracle. 
Hence, the supreme argument for Christian- 
ity is the adorable Personality back of the 
miracles. The signs and wonders wrought 
by Jesus long ago, in gracious condescension 
to temporary conditions, are of little value 
to us now except as they symbolize the 

194 



Ubc positive Hpologp 

greater works which the blessed Gospel is 
now and continually working. 

And here we conclude our positive apol- 
ogy, pointing to the adorable personality of 
the Christ of God. By his birth and humble 
life, by his sympathy and sorrow, by his in- 
comparable doctrine, by his wonderful ex- 
pressions of conscious union with God the 
Father Almighty, by the sinlessness of his 
character and the laying down of his spot- 
less life for the sins of men, by his resurrec- 
tion from the dead and the miracles of his 
grace, which repeat themselves a thousand 
thousand times each day by the power of the 
Spirit in the hearts of men — by all these 
facts and more, the Gospel of his love sounds 
its perpetual call and cries, ''If any man 
willeth to do his will, he shall know of the 
doctrine, whether it be of God." 

" O thou almighty Lord, 

Our Conqueror and King, 
Thy scepter and thy sword, 
Thy reigning grace, we sing : 
Thine is the power ; behold we sit 
In willing bonds beneath thy feet." 

195 



IFnbey 



Abelard, 26. 
Agnosticism, 71-74. 

Associated with evolution, 

76. 

Allegorical interpretation, 18, 
26, 82. 

Analysis, critical, 29. 

Anaximander, 15. 

Anaximenes, 16. 

Apologetics, defined, 10. 
Distinguished from Polem- 
ics, 159. 

Bacon, 22. 

Baur, 29. 

Berkeley, 53. 

Bible, discrepancies of, 85. 

Errors in, 105-108. 

Extravagant claims for, 82. 

Great purpose of, 105. 

Immoralities in, 85. 

Infallibility of, 82, 85. 

Interpolations in, 87. 

Perfection of, 83. 

Preciousness of, 86. 

Various forms of composi- 
tion in, 87. 

Various readings in, 87. 
Biology, 66. 



Bolingbroke, 23. 
Brahmanism, 121, 122, 124, 

129. 
Bruce, 75, 112. 
Buddhism, I2i, 122, 124, 129, 

148-154- 
Bushnell, 180. 
Butler, 38, 74. 
Buxtorf, 84. 

Caird, 43, 44, 113, 122, 123, 

128, 129, 144. 
Celsus, 18, 19. 
Christ, person of, 173-195. 
Christianity, adaptation to 
spiritual needs, 166, 167. 

Doctrines of, 45. 

Effects on society, 169. 

Errors of its friends, 161. 

Experience and life of, 165. 

Goal of, 170, 171. 

Hymnology of, 167-169. 

Missionary religion, 164. 

Religion of free thought, 
163. 

Scriptures of, 171, 172. 

The religion, 160. 
Chubb, 34. 
Clarke, 91. 



197 



■ffn^ej 



Collins, 27. 

Comte, 24. 

Confucianism, 124, 137-148. 

Copernicus, 63, 8g. 

Criticism, Higher, 81, 87, 88, 

90, 91, 92, 97, 98, 100, 

102, 104. 
Criticism, Lower, 84, 87. 
Cyrus in Isaiah, 102. 

Dale, no. 

Daniel, Book of, 26. 

Deism, 22, 27, 34. 

Democritus, 57. 

Descartes, 22, 24. 

Design, argument from, 77. 

Dionysius, 81. 

Diialism, 20, 45, 46, 47. 

Ebrard, ii. 

Ecclesiastes, Book of, 90-93. 

Edersheim, 192. 

Eichhorn, 28. 

Eusebius, 81. 

Evolution, 66-71. 

Fichte, 53. 

French infidelity, 23. 

Galileo, 64. 

Genesis and geology, 65. 

Genesis, interpretations of, 

69-71. 
German rationalism, 23, 28. 
Gibbon, 23. 

Gnosticism, 20, 21, 46, 47, 72. 
Gravitation, law of, 38. 



Greek philosophy, 14-17, 61. 

Harman, 91. 
Hegel, 24, 53, 60, 82. 
Heraclitus, 16, 
Hierocles, 18. 
Hillel, 81. 

Hindu philosophy, 61. 
Hume, 23, 187. 
Huxley, 55, 56. 

Idealism, 51, 52-54, 59, 66. 
Inspiration, 83, 107. 
Isaiah, Book of, 100-103. 

Jewish opposition, ii, 30. 
Judaism, 124. 
Julian, 18. 
Justin Martyr, 14. 

Kant, 24. 
Kellogg, 127. 

Lao-tsze, 146. 
Legge, 138, 139, 140. 
Leibnitz, 24. 
Leucippus, 57. 
Lucian, 18, 177. 

Manichaeism, 47. 
Materialism, 51, 54-59, 66. 
Matheson, 50, 73. 
Matter, origin of, 49, 50. 
Milton, 185. 

Miracles, argument from, 
112-114, 185-194. 
Jesus's estimate of, 192-194. 



198 



1[nt)ej 



Mohammedanism, 33, 34, 

124, 129. 
Monism, 51. 
Monuments, apologetic value 

of, 1 08- 1 10. 
Mueller, 123. 

Newton, 64. 

Origen, 19, 32. 

Pagan idolatry, 31. 

Pagan opposition, 12. 

Paine, 23. 

Pantheism, 51, 52, 60-63, 66. 

Parable of the stones in tlie 

field, 107. 
Paulus, 29. 
Philosophy, defined, 43. 

Underlying criticism, 81, 82. 
Plato, 16, 94. 
Pliny, 12. 

Porphyry, 18, 25, 26, 85. 
Positive philosophy, 24. 
Prophecy, argument from, 

IIO-112. 
Proverbs, Book of, 95-97. 
Psalms, Book of, 98-100. 
Pseudographs, 92-94. 
Purists, 83, 84, 89. 
Pythagoras, 16. 

Religion, comparative, 30, 35, 
Definition of, 127, 128. 
Different views of, 125, 126. 
Elements in, 127. 
Transmission of, 130, 131. 



Religions, classification of, 
123, 124. 
Imperfections of, 132-134. 
Renan, 29. 

Schaff, 21, 173. 

Schelling, 53. 

Science, 25, 63-71. 

Shaftesbury, 22. 

Shammai, 81. 

Sociology, 169. 

Spencer, 72. 

Spinoza, 24, 27, 60. 

Socrates, 94. 

Solomon, Wisdom of, 97, 98. 

Strauss, 29, 82. 

Synoptic problem, 29. 

Tacitus, 12. 
Tertullian, 32. 
Thales, 15. 
Tindal, 22. 
Toland, 22. 
Totemism, 124. 
Trench, 1 12, 170. 

Ullmann, 182. 

Volney, 34. 
Voltaire, 64. 

Watson, 66. 

Woolston, 28. 

Young, 175. 
Zoroastrianism, 46, 124. 



199 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide j 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies ,, 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIOM Ij 

Cra-re-^To.v-s-p PA 16056 || 

(724)779-211- f 



